re_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read operation with 'resolve' but does not explicitly state that it returns information, describe the output format, or note any error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and compactly lists the operation variants. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or filler.

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 has no output schema, so the description should explain return values and potential outcomes, but it only lists input parameters. It does not describe what 'resolving' a module or export yields (e.g., addresses, structures, success/failure), leaving the agent without adequate expectations for the result.

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 already provides descriptions for each parameter (100% coverage), but the description adds value by mapping ops to parameter groups (module uses name, export/import use module_base with export_name/import_name). This clarifies the conditional relationships between parameters, going slightly beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 resolves module internals and lists three specific operations (module, export, import), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like re_disasm or re_scan. The operations are specific enough to infer the tool's function, though 'module internals' could be slightly more explicit about what is returned.

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 op templates provide clear usage context for each operation (module {name}, export {module_base,export_name}, etc.), telling the agent exactly which parameters to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives among the sibling tools.

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