list_modules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the divergent behavior based on the parameter (compact summary vs full list) and the recommended calling sequence. It does not detail error handling, sorting, or pagination, but for a read-only listing tool, this is adequate.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically explains modes, usage order, and the parameter. It is reasonably concise, though the Args section partially repeats the earlier 'With repo_name' explanation, causing minor redundancy.

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 the simple parameter set, absence of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors and usage sequence. It does not specify outcomes for invalid repos or list sorting, but these details are not critical for effective invocation.

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 provides only the parameter name and default with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that repo_name is optional and that passing it retrieves the full module list for that repository, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 'List scanned modules in the knowledge base,' which precisely states the action and target. It further distinguishes the two modes (without repo_name vs. with repo_name) and the context of 'scanned modules' differentiates it from siblings like get_module_facts or search_codebase.

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?

Explicit workflow guidance is provided: 'Always call without repo_name first to discover available repos, then call again with repo_name.' This clearly indicates when to use each mode, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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