cvcue_api_modules

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the return content (modules with operation counts) and the module taxonomy, which is real behavioral value, but it says nothing about whether the list is static, whether it requires authentication, or the response shape beyond the count.

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 purpose and workflow position are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the module enumeration is genuinely useful for disambiguating similar-sounding modules (manageddevices vs. aps). The list is truncated with an ellipsis, so it is illustrative rather than exhaustive, which keeps it from feeling bloated but leaves the enumeration slightly ragged.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, output content, the module taxonomy, and the next step. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the module list is fixed or environment-dependent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description's mention of `module` refers to the sibling cvcue_api_search call rather than this tool, but it usefully clarifies how the output feeds forward, so no penalty is warranted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the CV-CUE API modules with operation counts") and explicitly frames itself as "step 1 of API discovery," which distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling tools cvcue_api_search, cvcue_api_schema, and cvcue_api_execute.

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 "step 1 of API discovery" framing plus the explicit handoff ("Pass a module name as `module` to cvcue_api_search") tells the agent exactly where this tool sits in the workflow and what to do next. It does not state when to skip this tool (e.g., if the module is already known), so it stops just short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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