List Data Modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Reads metadata only (no DuckDB attach)', which informs the agent that this is a safe, non-destructive operation. This adds useful behavioral context.

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 two sentences long, each serving a clear purpose: first sentence details what is listed, second sentence provides usage guidance and behavioral note. No redundant or vague language.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 optional boolean/enum parameters, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, parameters, and behavioral traits sufficiently for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying that 'includeInvalid' shows refused modules and why they didn't load, and implies the 'refresh' parameter re-scans. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 it lists installed local data modules with specific metadata fields (name, version, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are about search, citation, and other functions, not module introspection.

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 gives explicit guidance on using 'includeInvalid' to see refused modules, and notes it reads metadata only. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives beyond the implicit distinction from siblings.

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