get_modules

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Data comes from module load/unload events tracked during the session.' Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent, which align with the description. 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?

The description is concise, with three sentences covering purpose, return values, data source, and an escape hatch note. It is front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists return fields (module name, path, version, optimization status, symbol loading state), making the tool's output clear. With no parameters, the description is 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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. With 0 parameters, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it doesn't.

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 tool's purpose: 'List loaded assemblies/modules in the debug session.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('assemblies/modules'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on other debugging aspects like call stacks or variables.

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 provides context for when to use the tool: 'Useful for diagnosing assembly loading failures and version conflicts.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough among siblings.

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