List Modules (Admin)

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful context about scope ('all') and content ('configuration'), but does not disclose potential pagination, authorization requirements, or the exact structure of the returned data, which would enhance transparency.

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, compact sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word contributes to the meaning: the verb, the object, and the scope are all present with no 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 zero-parameter list operation, the description covers the core purpose well. However, with no output schema, it leaves unspecified details like what 'configuration' exactly includes, the response format, and whether admin role is required. These gaps are notable but not critical for such a simple tool.

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 takes no parameters, and the schema is trivially covered at 100%. The description reinforces the absence of filters by stating 'all' modules, which aligns with having zero parameters. As per the baseline for 0-param tools, this is strong.

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 action ('List all sidebar modules') and adds the additional detail 'with their configuration,' making the scope explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lyzr_get_module_admin (which targets a single module) and the create/update/delete variants.

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 alternatives such as lyzr_get_modules or other module-related tools. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and minimal description.

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