Module Recommendation

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are drawn from two sources, that the local index is conditionally available, and that local modules are ranked before downloads. It omits auth needs, rate limits, and ranking logic details.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the source-ordering detail. No filler, though the parenthetical parenthetical about DRUPAL_ROOT could be integrated more tightly.

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 needn't be explained, and the tool has only one near-self-explanatory parameter. The description covers the key behavior (dual-source combination and ordering); only the 'need' parameter's expected content is left undefined.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'need' parameter has no description in the schema. The description only restates it as 'a need' without clarifying format (free text? keywords? a sentence?) or how specificity affects results, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Recommend modules for a need') and clarifies scope: local codebase modules first, then drupal.org options. This distinguishes it from plain search siblings like module_search, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the two-source framing (recommendation vs. raw search), and it discloses a real prerequisite ('available when DRUPAL_ROOT is set'). However, it never states when to choose this over module_search, module_popular, or composer_require.

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