knowledge_modules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing the two output modes (overview vs. full settings list), but says nothing about required auth, whether missing-settings data is advisory, or how the module list is discovered.

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?

Two short sentences, overview behavior first and the parameter affordance second. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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?

With an output schema present, return shape need not be described, and annotations cover the read-only profile. The remaining gap is discovery of valid module identifiers, which the agent must infer from calling the tool with no arguments.

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%, so the description must carry the meaning of the single 'module' parameter — and it does: passing a module name yields its full settings list, while omitting it yields the module overview. It does not state the expected format or valid values for module names, which keeps it below a 5.

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 names specific content: which modules are enabled, what settings are missing, and what each tool does, with an optional per-module drill-down. It is clear what resource is being surfaced, though 'what each tool does' is slightly ambiguous in phrasing and no sibling differentiation is offered (siblings all belong to a different open_notebook family, so overlap risk is low).

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 implies usage: call without a module for the overview, pass a module name for the full settings list. That is useful implied guidance, but there are no explicit when-not conditions and no statement of which module names are valid or how to discover them.

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