get_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get details' without disclosing behavioral traits such as required permissions, error behavior, side effects, or return format. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state safety or any special conditions.

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 appropriately concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear Args section. Every piece of information is relevant, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple get-by-id tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose and parameter semantics. It is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it lacks contextual tips about related tools or prerequisites.

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 provides no descriptions for project_id or module_id (0% coverage). The description compensates by adding 'The UUID identifier of the project' and 'The UUID identifier of the module', giving meaning the schema lacks. This is valuable but not exhaustive (e.g., no mention of relationship constraints).

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 states 'Get details of a specific module', which clearly identifies the action (get details) and the resource (specific module), distinguishing it from list_modules that lists all modules. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it misses the top score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other get_ tools or list_modules. The description lacks any usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.

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