get_modules

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It clearly states it lists modules with specific details, implying a read-only operation. However, it could mention prerequisites like requiring an active debugging session or a paused debuggee.

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, front-loaded sentence of 25 words that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the data returned. No superfluous information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes both input (sessionId implied) and output fields. It could be more complete by noting that the list reflects the current state of the debuggee, but it is sufficient for a simple listing 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 schema has one parameter sessionId with 100% description coverage. The tool description does not add extra semantic context beyond 'Session ID'. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.

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 uses a specific verb 'List all modules' and clearly defines the resource as modules (DLLs and EXE) loaded in the debuggee. It also lists the returned fields: base address, size, entry point, and file path, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_memory_map or get_exports.

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 tool is for getting an overview of loaded modules, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools (e.g., get_memory_map for memory regions, get_exports for declared exports). Lacks when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.

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