Get Module Doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Return ... documentation' but does not mention that the tool is read-only, safe, or requires any authentication or permissions. It lacks explicit transparency about side effects or limitations.

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 two sentences: the first defines the tool's purpose, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with core functionality.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers purpose and usage, but omits return format or any behavioral context (e.g., read-only). For a simple tool, it meets minimum viability but has gaps.

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 schema describes 'moduleId' with 100% coverage. The description adds an example ('booking or payment'), which provides extra context but does not significantly enhance semantic understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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 'Return an LLM-readable documentation page for a module', with a specific verb ('return'), resource ('documentation page'), and scope ('for a module'). It also lists contents ('rules, implementation notes, agent guidance'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_module_docs' which likely list titles only.

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 instructs 'Use this before coding against a module contract,' providing a clear context of use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., 'inspect_module') for comparison.

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