get_module_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the lookup priority (project_id > workspace_path > project_name) and mentions flexible project resolution, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what 'comprehensive information' includes, or potential error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 well-structured with a lead sentence, a priority line, a WHEN TO USE list, and a USEFUL FOR line. It is not excessively long, and the sections make it easy to scan. The 'flexible project lookup' paragraph is somewhat redundant with the priority line but still adds context, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the agent will receive. It only says 'comprehensive information' and 'high-level view' without listing fields or return structure. It also does not mention prerequisites like the project existing. This is a critical gap for an agent to know what to expect from the tool.

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 schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the interaction between identifiers, stating that any combination can be specified and that priority is project_id > workspace_path > project_name. It also clarifies that module_name is required and gives an example, going beyond the schema's individual field 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 function: 'Retrieve comprehensive information about a logical module in the project.' This is a specific verb+resource, and it differentiates from sibling tools like get_project_info by focusing on modules. The 'USEFUL FOR' line reinforces this by describing it as getting a high-level view of a component or subsystem.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section provides five concrete scenarios, such as before working on a module and checking dependencies. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, the context is clear. The tool's distinct module focus effectively implies when a project-level tool like get_project_info would be more appropriate.

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