module_describe

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's '读取' (read) aligns with that. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: omitted id returns new-module candidate content. No contradiction.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and then adding the key conditional detail. Every part earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and readOnlyHint=true, the description doesn't need to explain return format or safety. However, the scope parameter is undocumented, and there is no guidance on when to use module_describe vs module_preview, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 partially explains the id parameter's omission behavior but says nothing about the scope parameter. This leaves one of the two parameters semantically unexplained.

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 action ('读取模块表单与基线', read module form and baseline) and the conditional behavior when id is omitted. It is specific about the resource but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like module_preview.

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 provides clear context: use it to read module form/baseline, and if id is omitted, it returns candidate content for creating a new module. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the conditional guidance is explicit enough.

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