dume_list_module_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does clarify the returned content set. However, it omits that this is a safe read, what happens when 'module' is left at its empty default, and whether results are paginated or capped.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler. The enumeration of returned artifacts is the right thing to lead with, and nothing extraneous is included.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained. Still, for a tool with an undocumented parameter default and no annotations, the description leaves a meaningful gap around scoping behavior when 'module' is omitted.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It expands 'module' to 'specified module or system area', which adds slight meaning, but never explains the empty-string default or whether omitting the parameter returns context for all modules.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Returns') and enumerates the resource set: ADRs, error fingerprints, and incidents. It distinguishes itself from siblings like dume_read_adr and dume_get_error_details by being the aggregate listing tool, though the description doesn't state that contrast explicitly.

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 word 'list' and the aggregate scope imply when to use it rather than the per-artifact readers (dume_read_adr, dume_get_error_details, dume_get_incident_rca), but no explicit when-to-use or exclusion is stated. An agent must infer the routing decision.

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