list_modules

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

The description implies a read-only listing operation, which is behaviorally accurate, but with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any potential side effects or specifics about what constitutes 'loaded modules,' though the action is inherently non-destructive.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's main function. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter context without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still leaves gaps: it does not explain what constitutes 'loaded modules' or how to properly use the session_id parameter. For a tool with a single required parameter, this lack of explanation hinders correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter session_id has no description in the schema. The tool description also fails to explain what session_id is or how to obtain it, providing no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 states 'List loaded modules in the target,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like list_processes or list_sessions, slightly reducing clarity.

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 (e.g., list_processes). There is no mention of prerequisites or context for using the session_id parameter.

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