Codebase Module Describe

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the payload heavily, and 'Describe' makes the read-only nature evident, but it says nothing about failure modes (unknown/non-local module), index staleness, or whether a refresh is needed first.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the return contents listed immediately after. The trailing 'everything the index knows about it' is a mild restatement but costs almost nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values did not need spelling out, and the description covers them anyway. Remaining gaps are the undocumented module identifier and the unstated dependency on an up-to-date codebase index, which matters for a tool that reads solely from an index.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single required 'module' parameter has no description in either place. 'one local module' hints at scope but not the expected format (machine name vs. path vs. human label), so an agent must guess the identifier convention.

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') plus resource ('one local module') and enumerates exactly what comes back (info.yml fields, dependencies, reverse dependencies, hooks, services, routes, classes, file count). It implicitly separates itself from list-style siblings like codebase_module_list, but never names a sibling explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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 phrase 'one local module in full' implies the use case (deep inspection of a single indexed module rather than a listing), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. requiring a fresh codebase index), and no named alternative such as codebase_hooks_find or codebase_search for narrower lookups.

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