fsv_list_modules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does signal a pure read operation ('List all') with no mutation implied. It also discloses the shape of the content returned (category, scope, checks, profiles). It stops short of saying the enumeration is complete/static or that no auth or targeting is required, but for a zero-argument listing call the remaining risk is low.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the payload in priority order. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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-param tool with an output schema, the description only needs to establish what the catalog contains, which it does thoroughly. The one missed opportunity is a forward pointer that module/profile identifiers from this call feed into fsv_scan, which would complete the workflow story.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description correctly spends no words on arguments.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('FSV scan modules') with the exact fields returned enumerated: category (passive/active), scope (site/url), what each checks, and scan profiles. That level of detail makes it unmistakably the catalog/discovery tool, distinct from the action-oriented siblings like fsv_scan, fsv_waf_check, and fsv_get_report.

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 tool's role as a static catalog is implied by 'list all ... plus the available scan profiles', which tells an agent this is where module and profile names come from. However, it never states when to reach for it versus fsv_scan or fsv_quick_check, nor that it should be called first to discover valid module/profile values.

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