list_mas_modules

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the 'published' state scope, which is useful, but it does not describe pagination behavior, ordering, visibility limits, or what precisely is included in a module's data. It goes slightly beyond the annotations without being exhaustive.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the operation and resource. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope, and there is no repetitive or filler content.

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?

This is a simple listing tool with one optional parameter, a complete input schema, an output schema, and annotations that fully describe its safe behavior. The description's explicit mention of 'published' adds the key business context needed for selection, making the overall package complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 only parameter, limit, is fully documented in the input schema with type, default, and a clear description. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add much; it adds no redundant or conflicting parameter information.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clearly defined resource: 'published scoring models and decisions (MAS modules).' This distinguishes it from other list tools in the sibling set, such as list_jobs and list_reports, by naming both the content type and publishment state.

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 clearly implies the use case—listing MAS modules that are published—but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over related sibling tools like list_registered_models, list_ml_projects, or list_decision_flows. There are no exclusionary guidelines or alternative tool references.

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