add_module

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

With no annotations provided, the description reveals automatic dependency resolution, route/menu injection, and handler regeneration, which adds behavioral context. However, it omits side effects (e.g., file modifications, reversibility, permission requirements) and does not fully disclose the tool's impact.

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 sentences with front-loaded main purpose and additional features. Efficient, though a slight restructuring could separate features more clearly.

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 complexity (multiple automatic actions) and lack of output schema/annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites (project must exist), error conditions, or permanent changes, leaving significant 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 100%, providing clear parameter meanings. The description does not add additional parameter-specific guidance (e.g., format constraints, order), so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 verb 'add' and resource 'module' to an existing HWMS project, listing specific features (dependency resolution, route/menu injection, handler regeneration) that distinguish it from siblings like list_modules, resolve_dependencies, and generate_scaffold.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for adding modules to existing projects, but does not exclude cases like new projects, or advise using resolve_dependencies separately.

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