Module Popular

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the sort order, the aggregation semantics (usage summed across every release line), and error behavior (invalid categories are echoed in the error). It omits rate limits, data freshness, and how the underlying Drupal.org source is queried, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by filter mechanics, aggregation note, and error behavior in a logical order. Every sentence adds information, though the aggregation sentence is slightly ancillary.

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. For a two-parameter read-only listing tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, filtering, ordering, aggregation, and error handling adequately; only 'limit' semantics are left undocumented.

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. It does so well for 'category' (case-insensitive, substring matching, example values, error fallback) but says nothing about 'limit' — not its default of 20, maximum, or behavior. Partial compensation warrants a middle score.

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 and resource — listing the most-installed modules on Drupal.org — plus the ordering (newest usage first). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like module_search (keyword lookup) or module_get (single module), though it never names an alternative explicitly, 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 word 'optionally' plus concrete category examples gives implied guidance on when to use the filter, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives statement (e.g., vs. module_search or project_usage) and no exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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