reai_v10v11_modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states the tool lists modules with report counts but does not disclose sorting order, pagination behavior, whether it returns aggregate data, or any performance implications. For a list-type tool this is a moderate gap.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('List all FSM modules') and then adds useful context about report counts and use case. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema) and the description covers the core purpose well. However, it lacks detail on the return format, ordering of modules, and what 'report counts' specifically means, which an agent might need to interpret the results. Adequate but not rich.

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 has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so there is nothing for the description to add regarding parameter semantics. Baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description correctly mentions the report counts as the output content.

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 states a specific action ('List all FSM modules') with a clear resource (V10-V11 mapping database) and additional detail (report counts). It distinguishes from siblings like reai_search_v10v11 (search) and reai_v10v11_stats (stats) by focusing on module listing with report counts.

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 implies usage for understanding module coverage ('Useful for understanding what modules are covered'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it versus alternatives like reai_search_v10v11 or reai_v10v11_stats, leaving differentiation to inference.

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