List All Modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'Lists module summaries' and scopes to 'vertical structure only.' While it doesn't explicitly mention permissions or limits, the behavioral intent is clear and consistent, and the output schema covers return structure. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, directly followed by usage guidance and a hint about usage. No wasted words; every sentence contributes meaning. Excellent conciseness.

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 nature of the tool (one optional param, output schema present), the description is fully complete: it covers purpose, distinguishes from siblings, gives usage context, and even provides post-edit advice. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter projectId, with good description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about this parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: 'Lists module summaries from architecture (name, description)—vertical structure only.' It specifies the resource (modules) and the scope (vertical structure), and contrasts with horizontal facts tools like list-slices and get-slice, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (for vertical structure) and when not to (for horizontal facts, use list-slices then get-slice). Also provides post-editing advice ('After edits run validate') and usage context for module names in set-entry refs, offering clear alternatives and context.

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