Get Module (Admin)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal context beyond the resource type ('sidebar module') and does not disclose return format, error behavior, or admin-specific requirements. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage, but the description adds little beyond what's already known.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the core action and target. It contains no filler words and is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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-key operation with one parameter and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify when to choose this admin variant over the many sibling tools, nor does it mention expected return structure. Given the extensive tool list, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 100% with the only parameter 'key' described as 'Module key', so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description's phrase 'by key' aligns with the schema but adds no further detail about the expected value format or 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 'Fetch a single sidebar module by key' uses a specific verb (fetch), identifies the resource (sidebar module), and clarifies the operation is for a single item by key. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_list_modules_admin or lyzr_get_modules, which likely handle listing or multiple modules.

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 usage: when you have a module key and need one specific sidebar module, call this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer distinctions from sibling names.

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