Inventory Modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing but says nothing about auth requirements, whether the site must be reachable, or what the result set contains, and it ignores the filter_custom option entirely.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification given three undocumented parameters.

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 format need not be explained, and the tool is a simple listing operation. Still, with zero annotation coverage and no parameter explanation, the description is only minimally complete for an agent to call it 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 all three parameters and does not. It does not explain site_url, the auth object, or the meaning/effect of filter_custom (custom-only vs all).

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?

Clear specific verb ("List") plus resource ("modules") scoped to a Drupal site. It is unambiguous what the tool does, but it offers no differentiation from the adjacent inventory_content_types or the many module_* siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g. that site_url is required), and no alternatives. It is only implicit that you call it to enumerate installed modules.

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