list_modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The word 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose any additional context such as ordering, pagination, or error behavior, but for a simple list operation this may be sufficient.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter explanation is clear and to the point. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, list operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It describes the purpose and parameter clearly. It could benefit from a note on differentiating from get_module, but it is adequate for the complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an Args section explaining that project_id is the UUID identifier of the project, adding meaning beyond the bare schema type. This adequately compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool gets all modules for a specific project, using the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'modules'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_module, but the use of 'all' distinguishes its list behavior.

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 when to use the tool (when you need all modules for a project) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. There is no mention of sibling tools or exclusions.

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