elearning_get_materi

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that results include download links for uploaded files, which is behavior beyond the tool name. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, ordering, or whether results are scoped to the logged-in student.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; it states the resource and the return content efficiently. Slightly more value could be packed in without sacrificing brevity.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (materials plus file links). The main omissions are pagination and auth context, which are minor for this complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional mapel_id parameter is already documented in the schema as an optional course-ID filter. The description adds no further parameter detail such as behavior when the filter is omitted, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: retrieving a list of lecture materials uploaded by lecturers, including file download links. This clearly separates it from siblings like elearning_list_tugas (assignments) or elearning_get_jadwal (schedule), though it does not explicitly reference any sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as elearning_get_tugas_detail or elearning_get_dashboard. Usage is only implied by the word 'mengambil' (retrieve), with no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or routing hints.

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