gauge_modules

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

The description adds concrete behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: it says the tool reports enabled modules, missing settings, tool descriptions, and module-specific settings. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, but the read-only annotation makes that less critical.

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 compact sentences with no wasted words, and it front-loads the main capability before explaining the optional module-specific behavior.

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, read-only inspection tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter behavior. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying the default/no-argument result, but no major information is missing.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single optional 'module' parameter. The description compensates partially by explaining that passing a module name returns its full settings list, but it does not specify valid module names, expected format, or the exact behavior when omitted.

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 that the tool reports which modules are enabled, missing settings, and per-tool descriptions, and that a module name returns its full settings list. It identifies the resource and scope well, though it does not compare itself with any sibling tools.

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 second sentence gives an explicit usage instruction: pass a module name to get its full settings list. However, the description does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or clarify the no-argument case beyond implication.

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