List course modules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds value by specifying that the result includes the modules' items, which informs the agent of the return content. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('List modules in a course') and then adds the important qualifier ('with their items'), making every word earn 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It states the core action and the inclusion of items, which hints at the return structure. However, with no output schema, it could be more explicit about the response format, though this is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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 input schema already provides a full description for courseId ('Canvas course id'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('modules') with a clear scope ('in a course') and elaborates that it includes items. This is unambiguous and distinguishes it well from the many sibling tools that list other course resources like files, pages, or assignments.

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 its usage by stating exactly what it does, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Since there are no sibling tools for modules, this absence is acceptable, but the description still lacks any contextual when-to-use advice.

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