List Project Modules

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds that the result includes module identifiers and rules-root information intended for subsequent operations, which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action and output contents are front-loaded, followed by one sentence of downstream guidance that earns its place.

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 compensates by listing the return fields and explaining how to use the returned names downstream. It is sufficient for a simple read-only list operation, though exact response structure and edge cases like empty projects are not described.

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%: both projectId and response_format have detailed descriptions, including where projectId comes from and the available response formats. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond this, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'List the modules declared by a project.' It further enumerates the returned contents (module names, rules-root paths/patterns, and modules matched by a pattern), making the tool's scope concrete and distinguishable from sibling tools like openl_list_module_sheets or openl_list_tables.

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 second sentence provides concrete downstream use cases: 'Use the returned name when creating/copying a table, selecting a module graph, or listing worksheets.' This gives clear context for when this tool matters, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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