list_data_modules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well on return shape (DMC parts, techName/infoName, issue, language, schema name, S1000D issue, applicability text) and paging defaults. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or what happens when csdbDirs overlaps the default S1000D_CSDB_DIR, which for a filesystem-scanning tool is a meaningful gap.

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 dense sentences plus a short paging note, front-loaded with the resource and its default. The long parenthetical and comma-list of returned fields make it slightly heavy to parse, but nothing is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so listing the returned fields is essential and done here; paging semantics are also covered. Remaining holes are secondary: the 'icn' include option and the relationship between csdbDirs and the environment default are left unexplained.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description usefully states the dm default for 'include' and names the filterable fields, but 'title text' loosely paraphrases a filter the schema defines as matching techName/infoName, adding ambiguity rather than precision.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List the CSDB objects') and enumerates the object kinds covered, with data modules named as the default. This clearly separates it from read_data_module/read_publication_module siblings, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

Browsing/filtering usage is implied by the filter and paging details, but there is no explicit 'use this when… instead of read_data_module' guidance. An agent must infer that this tool is for discovery and the read_* tools for retrieval of a single object.

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