ads_module_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that modules are not started and that their API logic and credentials stay outside the AdsMCP database, implying a side-effect-free inspection. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, whether it makes network calls, or what permissions are required.

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 sentences, both front-loaded with useful information. The first states the action and key constraint; the second explains the architectural context. No sentence is wasted.

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 inspection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it safely: it lists modules without starting them and clarifies credential boundaries. It does not describe the shape of the returned module list, which would have been a minor improvement.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and nothing in the description conflicts with that.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Show configured provider MCP modules'. This is clearly distinct from call-oriented siblings by the clause 'without starting them'. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as ads_module_call, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'without starting them' implies this is a planning/inspection tool rather than an execution tool, which is useful contrast. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of ads_module_call or ads_module_tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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