list_oz_modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing and optional filtering but fails to describe key behaviors such as the return format (e.g., list of names, details), pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key feature (optional filtering). It is front-loaded with no wasted words, making it highly concise and 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the return values, error handling, or behavioral traits like data freshness or limitations. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('category' and 'version') with enums and defaults. The description adds minimal value by mentioning optional filtering by category but doesn't explain the meaning of categories or versions beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('OpenZeppelin contracts and libraries'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'oz_index_status' which might also provide listing functionality, nor does it mention the optional filtering by version which is a key parameter.

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 usage by mentioning optional filtering by category, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_oz_docs' or 'get_oz_contract'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving usage context partially unclear.

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