List runtime modules

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/non-openWorld. The description goes beyond them with phase, cost tier, the active-client precondition, and the produced artifacts (bounded-candidates, operation-receipt), which materially help the agent reason about calling it. Minor gap: it doesn't mention rate or result-size behavior beyond the limit param.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the metadata is terse, but restating the signature '{ includeNil: any?, limit: any?, threadContext: number? }' duplicates the schema without adding meaning and bloats an otherwise compact definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry the return-value burden; 'Produces: bounded-candidates, operation-receipt' is only a vague tag and doesn't explain what metadata is actually reported. Safety and preconditions are covered, so it is adequate but incomplete for a read tool returning structured metadata.

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 100% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, so the description's inline signature adds no semantics beyond restating names/types. Correct baseline of 3 when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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?

'Find ModuleScripts in game + nil instances and report metadata for reversing' gives a specific verb (find/list) and resource (ModuleScripts) plus the distinguishing scope of including nil instances. However, it does not name the obvious sibling find-module-scripts, so an agent must infer the boundary between the two.

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?

'Phase: observe; cost=medium; Requires: active-client' supplies usable invocation context (precondition and phase). But there is no when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance, and neither find-module-scripts nor get-module-source is referenced as a related or preferred tool.

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