get_core_module

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

No annotations provided, so description must convey behavior. It states read-only action and basic behavior (list if no name). Lacks details on side effects, permissions, error handling, or return format. Adequate for a simple read tool but could be more transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences. First sentence covers purpose and context, second adds listing behavior. No wasted words, well-structured.

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?

Tool has no output schema, so description should explain return format. It only says 'read' or 'lists all', but not what the output contains (e.g., source code string, list of names). Missing critical information for a complete understanding.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions, but the description adds value: explains 'name' examples and that omitting lists all, and 'max_lines' has default noted in schema. This provides context beyond the schema definitions.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'read' and resource 'core module' with location 'src/core/'. It also notes that core modules implement fundamental Lampa APIs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'list_modules' which may perform a similar listing function.

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?

Implies usage: read a named core module, or list all when name omitted. Mentions what core modules are used for. No explicit when-not or alternatives to sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity about which tool to use for listing modules.

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