get_runtime_modules

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the operation is authenticated, is not separately rate-limited, and returns catalog-style evidence. This gives the agent a solid behavioral picture even without an output schema.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the verb and resource; the second packages usage signals and behavioral traits. Every phrase contributes value.

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 catalog getter, the description is nearly complete: it names the content categories and gives a usage trigger. A small gap is the lack of detail on the shape of the catalog entries, but no output schema exists and the coverage is otherwise adequate.

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 baseline is 4 and no parameter-level elaboration is required. The schema fully covers the parameter space with an empty object, and the description appropriately focuses on outputs and usage instead.

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 specifies a concrete verb ('Get') and a distinct resource ('authenticated Algenta runtime module proof catalog'), then enumerates what it contains: module inventory, proof-matrix entries, maturity counts, and compiled module evidence. This clearly separates it from sibling runtime tools like benchmarks or manifests.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: when an agent needs module inventory, proof-matrix entries, maturity counts, or compiled module evidence before runtime-backed paths. It lacks named alternatives, but the use cases are specific enough to route an agent correctly.

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