get_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the query action but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention any side effects, permissions, or note the return format beyond the fact that it returns classes and interfaces. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 clear sentence with no fluff, redundant information, or unnecessary detail. It effectively communicates the core purpose without waste.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, simple purpose) and the well-described schema, the description is mostly complete. It states the output (all classes and interfaces), which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, the absence of behavioral transparency and usage alternatives prevents a perfect score.

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?

The single parameter 'moduleName' is fully described in the schema with examples (exia-ccui, exia-data, etc.), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function: query all classes and interfaces in a module. It uses a specific verb ('查询') and resource ('模块'), and the result set is explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_class and get_method, which target individual elements, and search_api, which searches differently.

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 implies usage (use when you need all classes/interfaces of a module) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. No guidance is given on how to choose between get_module and search_api, get_class, or get_method. This is an implied, not explicit, usage context.

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