list_known_modules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It accurately signals this is a read-only, listing operation with no side effects, and details the output fields (name, generation date, records). This is sufficient disclosure for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

At 9 words, the description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the key verb and resource. Every word is meaningful. It could optionally mention no parameters are needed, but that is implicit.

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, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool lists and what information is returned. No critical gaps are present.

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 description coverage is 100% but there are zero parameters, so the description has nothing to add about parameters. The baseline is 4 per the rubric for 0 params — description correctly says nothing about params because there are none.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'modules this server has learned', and specifies the information included: name, generation date, records. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_read, read_record, and explore_module by focusing on enumerating learned modules and their metadata.

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 a discovery tool for seeing what modules the server knows about, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like explore_module or read_record. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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