list_modules

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 states the tool returns an overview of modules, capabilities, and delivery forms, but does not disclose whether the data is static, cached, or reflects real-time state. With no annotations, the description should clarify if this is a read-only, safe operation. A score of 3 reflects the description gives some useful behavioral context but lacks clarity on side effects or data freshness.

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 a single sentence of 18 words, very concise. It is front-loaded with the purpose ('Overview of the catalog') and then lists what it covers. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points implied), but for zero-param tool it's efficient.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns. It mentions 'the four modules, how many capabilities each holds, and what the two delivery forms mean,' which gives a clear idea of the output structure. However, without any annotations or output schema, the description should also clarify whether the output is a list, a summary, or a single object. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. Since there are no parameters to document, the description is not required to add anything. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to clarify.

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 specifies the verb (list/overview) and resource (catalog of modules, capabilities, delivery forms). It distinguishes from siblings: siblings 'get_capability' and 'search_capabilities' imply focused queries, while this tool provides a high-level catalog summary.

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 implies this is an overview tool, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs siblings. For example, it doesn't say 'Use this for broad orientation; use get_capability for details on one module, or search_capabilities for filtered queries.' Guidance is implied but not explicit.

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