List loaded ACS modules

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

The description mentions running a command and includes a note about map vars' lifetime, offering some behavioral context. However, it does not specify whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires a loaded map.

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 concise with two sentences. The second sentence about map vars is somewhat tangential but does not significantly hinder clarity.

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?

While the return values (id + name) are stated, the description omits important context such as the meaning of the 'instance' parameter, whether results depend on a loaded map, or any prerequisites. This leaves gaps for a simple tool.

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 0%, yet the description provides no explanation for the 'instance' parameter. The parameter remains undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool runs `dumpmodules` and returns loaded ACS modules with id and name. The name 'list_modules' and title directly describe the action, and it is distinct from sibling tools like list_acs_vars, list_scripts, etc.

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 over alternatives is provided. It does not mention context like prerequisites, conditions, or comparisons to other listing tools.

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