get_stored_modules

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the data provenance (StoredModules journal events) and a staleness caveat requiring an in-game refresh. What it omits is whether results are empty when the journal lacks data, and nothing about cost/latency.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the decision it supports, then the refresh caveat. No filler sentences.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations are absent, so the description reasonably covers source, purpose and freshness limits. The only real hole is the lone optional parameter, which is a minor gap given a defaulted config-style argument.

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 single parameter journal_dir has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned at all in the description. With one undocumented parameter and no compensating text, an agent must guess whether it overrides the default journal source or is a filter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: modules the commander owns in storage, grouped per station, sourced from StoredModules journal events. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the buy-side siblings (find_module) via "check here before buying," though it never names an alternative tool outright.

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?

Gives an explicit use case with rationale ("check here before buying: a stored module only needs a transfer") and a prerequisite caveat (refresh the station in-game). It stops short of naming a sibling tool or stating when this result should be ignored, so not a 5.

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