privacyops_modules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data, not the description. The description contributes the useful nuance that this is a discovery/overview call with an optional drill-down, but says nothing about response shape, cost, or whether module settings include sensitive values.

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 with no filler, and the drill-down instruction is placed second where it belongs. The first sentence is a noun list lacking a verb, which slightly weakens front-loading but costs little in length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a discovery tool whose only parameter is a module name, though, the description never tells the agent how to obtain valid module names — a meaningful gap for a one-parameter lookup where the caller must supply an arbitrary string.

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% and the single parameter has no enum, so the description carries the full burden. It does explain the parameter's effect (a module name yields that module's full settings list) and implies behavior when omitted; the notable gap is that no valid module names or format are given.

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 reads as a comma-separated list of content nouns (modules on, tool descriptions, data storage, skills, disclaimer) without a clear verb, so the action is implied rather than stated. It is distinguishable from siblings like disputes_list and letters_generate because nothing about disputes or letters appears, but the agent must infer that this is a meta/discovery endpoint rather than a data query.

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?

'Pass a module name for its full settings list' implies the no-argument vs. with-argument split (overview vs. detail), which is useful context. However, there is no statement of when to call this versus any alternative, no prerequisite info, and no guidance on where to find valid module names.

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