get_module_card

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: deterministic but caveat about regex-based guesses. It alerts users to potential inaccuracies, which is transparent.

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 sentence that packs essential information without redundancy, achieving high conciseness.

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?

The description covers the key output elements but omits details like return format or error cases. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, it is largely 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 single 'module' parameter is not elaborated beyond the schema (0% coverage), but its usage is intuitive. The description implies it accepts a module name, which is sufficient for a simple string input.

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 explicitly lists the output items (ports, instance counts, sequential count, source ref, clock/reset candidates) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stats or get_hierarchy by specifying a deterministic module summary.

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 warns that clock/reset candidates are a name-based regex guess and advises verification before reliance, implying limited trustworthiness for structural queries. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for deeper analysis.

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