Move modules in a Sui package

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries real weight and delivers: the whole package is never returned (0x2 framework is ~484 KB), there is no upstream paging so truncation yields no cursor, and repeated addresses appear as $n/@n handles resolved by adjacent ids/packages tables. These are exactly the traits an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the default index behavior and cap, then the override, then the escalation path, then a data-encoding note. Every sentence carries information, though the dense four-paragraph block and long compound sentences cost some readability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return shape, and it does: row-per-module index with name, function count and datatype count, versus full signatures for a named module. Truncation behavior, the hard ceiling, and handle encoding are all covered, leaving no gap an agent needs to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow-level meaning: it explains that maxModules is the escape hatch from the 50-row cap, that `module` switches to full detail, and that `module` supersedes maxModules. It ties the three parameters into a coherent strategy rather than restating the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the resource and default behavior: an index of one row per module in a published Move package, or a single module in full when `module` is passed. It distinguishes itself from the sibling suiGetFunction ('then suiGetFunction for a single signature'). The opening sentence ('What a published Move package declares') is slightly abstract rather than a direct 'returns X' verb+resource framing, which keeps it just below 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?

Explicit routing is given: use the default index for a survey, pass `module` for one module in full, and escalate past the cap via maxModules, then `module`, then suiGetFunction. It also states the condition that selects each alternative, leaving nothing to inference.

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