list_mas_modules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates the tool lists only 'published' items, which is a behavioral filter, and clarifies that 'MAS modules' encompasses scoring models and decisions. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination, ordering, or other behavioral traits. The word 'List' implies a read operation, but more explicit disclosure would be better.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes meaning. It is concise without being under-specified at the basic level.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the presence of several sibling listing tools creates a need for differentiation that is not addressed. The description covers the core purpose but lacks context on how this tool fits into the broader set of list tools, making it slightly incomplete for an AI agent selecting the correct 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 100% because the single 'limit' parameter is fully described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter or how to use it. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not introduce extra semantics.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('published scoring models and decisions (MAS modules)'). It identifies what is being listed, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_decision_flows or list_registered_models, which may overlap in scope. The term 'MAS modules' adds specificity, so it's clear but not fully distinct.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as list_decision_flows and list_registered_models exist, and the description gives no comparison or exclusions. The usage context is implied (use to list MAS modules), but there is no explicit direction for an agent to choose this over similar listing tools.

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