Get Modules

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

Annotations provide readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that modules are 'resolved' for the caller, implying access-based filtering, and lists the content (nav + footer). This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what the tool returns.

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 one short sentence (11 words), directly states the purpose, and includes the key qualifiers ('resolved', 'nav + footer', 'current caller'). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 zero-parameter getter, the description adequately explains what is returned (nav + footer modules) and for whom. It lacks an explicit return structure, but given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, this is not a critical gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the description is not required to add parameter details; a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is no ambiguity.

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 a specific action ('Get') and a specific resource ('resolved sidebar modules'), with scope ('for the current caller'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'lyzr_list_modules_admin' and 'lyzr_get_module_admin', which target admin use cases.

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 the usage context by specifying 'for the current caller', indicating this is for retrieving the caller's own modules, not an admin or bulk operation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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