fiji_module_describe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses that defaults/choices reflect the state AFTER initializers ran, that live objects are discovered, and that provenance is reported as groupId:artifactId:version.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the return contents, then the id note. It is dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical example for provided_by is slightly bulky but justified.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does reasonably well by naming the reported fields (types, labels, descriptions, defaults, choices, live objects, provided_by). It stops short of describing shape/nesting of the result, but the coverage is good for a read-only introspection tool.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents `id`. The description restates the accepted forms (class name, menu path, title, script file path) in near-identical wording to the schema, adding no new semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (describe) and enumerates the exact resources returned: a module's inputs/outputs, the live objects filling object inputs, and the providing artifact. This clearly separates it from fiji_module_search (find) and fiji_module_run (execute).

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?

Usage is only implied — the agent can infer this is the introspection step before running a module, but the description never says when to call it instead of fiji_module_search or fiji_module_run, nor any prerequisite. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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