analyze_module_pool

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

The description details the return value (structured JSON with screens, modules, etc.) but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden; it is fairly transparent but could explicitly note non-destructive behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Each sentence serves a clear function: stating the action, providing usage guidance, and summarizing output. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (analyzing modules pool with rich output) and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned. However, it could benefit from mentioning the structure of the JSON output more explicitly, but it remains complete enough for agent usage.

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 coverage is 100% already, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining that source_code must be combined from GetProgram and GetInclude calls, and gives an example for program_name. This adds meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: analyzing Module Pool source code. It explicitly mentions the resource (module pool source code) and the action (analyze). Sibling tools like check_released_cds or create_transport are unrelated, making this tool 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?

The description provides explicit prerequisites: first use GetProgram and GetInclude to fetch source, then pass the combined source here. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and what steps precede it, effectively differentiating from alternatives.

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