get_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral context by stating the return format (Markdown string) and that the ID comes from a manifest with an example. However, it does not disclose failure behavior, side effects, or availability constraints, though these are relatively minor for a simple read-style getter.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then Args and Returns sections. There is no filler, and each line adds necessary information for invoking the tool correctly.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with one required parameter and a string return, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, explains the parameter, and specifies the output format. Missing usage context and failure semantics are gaps, but they do not prevent a correct call in the common case.

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 provides only a type and title, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining that module_id is an ID from the manifest and giving a concrete example (stack:django-drf:backend-standard). This makes the parameter meaning and expected format clear.

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 a specific verb ('Pobierz' / fetch) and resource ('pojedynczy moduł instrukcji') by identifier, so an agent can understand the core action. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_index or get_bundle, but the 'module' resource is distinct enough to make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use get_module versus alternatives like list_modules, get_bundle, or get_overlay. The description only explains the mechanism (fetch by module_id), not the selection context or any exclusions.

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