apidog_modules

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('List') and specifies output (names and IDs), but adds no context on side effects, authentication, or rate limits. The description is minimally transparent for a simple listing tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and includes relevant detail about output. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return content (names and IDs). It lacks detail about how modules are nested or grouped, but given the low complexity, this is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with the project parameter described as 'Required when multiple projects are configured, optional otherwise.' The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond this, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action: 'List all configured Apidog projects and their modules with names and IDs.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like apidog_list or apidog_folders by explicitly focusing on projects and modules.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (listing projects/modules) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention when to prefer this over apidog_list or apidog_folders, nor any prerequisites. This is implied guidance at best.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.