List all available instruction modules from the project-guides manifest to identify which guides match your project profile.
Lista wszystkich modułów dostępnych w instruction-kit (manifest).
Returns: str: Markdown z identyfikatorami i tytułami modułów.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (Markdown string with identifiers and titles) but does not state read-only nature, side effects, auth requirements, or any failure behavior. Minimal behavioral detail 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?
Two concise sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return type is stated clearly. Perfectly sized for a simple list tool.
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 simple 0-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description covers what it returns. It doesn't explain the concept of 'instruction-kit' or the manifest, but that context may be understood from the tool family. Slightly lacking in contextual depth but adequate.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter meanings. The schema covers 100% with no parameters, and the description adds nothing about parameters, but per rubric 0 params baseline is 4.
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 states a specific verb ('Lista wszystkich modułów') and resource ('instruction-kit manifest'), clearly indicating it retrieves all modules. It distinguishes from siblings like get_module by specifying 'all modules', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_module, list_presets, or list_bundles. There are no prerequisites or conditions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.