Codebase Module List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral detail the schema cannot convey: the exact field set of each item and the precise semantics of the unused flag ('nothing references it and it implements no hooks'). It stops short of disclosing scope of the underlying index, pagination, or whether results are cached.

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 that are front-loaded with the core purpose and free of filler; the field enumeration is dense but earns its space by telling the agent what it will receive. Minor cost is that the field list reads as a catalog rather than prioritized information.

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 need no explanation, and for a two-parameter read tool the description is close to adequate. The gap is that with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the 'scope' parameter and the meaning of 'indexed' (against which snapshot/index) remain undefined, which matters for calling the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains show_unused well, including the two-part condition for flagging, but the 'scope' parameter (default 'all') is never mentioned and its allowed values are left entirely to the agent's guess.

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 ('List') and resource ('indexed local modules with metadata'), and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what surface it exposes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like codebase_module_describe, inventory_modules, or codebase_unused_modules, so an agent cannot route purely from the text.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternatives among the many codebase_* siblings. The only usage signal is implicit: 'With show_unused=True' hints at a conditional read for finding orphaned modules, which is suggestive but not a routing rule.

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