moodle_get_recent_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the scope of changes (materials, activities, announcements, deadlines) and grouping by course, but doesn't detail output format or limits. Since an output schema exists, this is adequate but not rich; the description adds some value beyond annotations but not extensive behavioral context.

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 short paragraphs: the first front-loads the purpose with a clear question, the second lists parameters concisely. No filler; every sentence earns 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?

With only 2 optional params and an output schema present, the description covers the main use case and parameter semantics. It doesn't mention pagination, limits, or performance implications, but for a read-only aggregate query this is acceptable given the output schema covers return values. Slightly incomplete for edge cases, hence a 4.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'since' with ISO formats and relative strings (7d, 12h, 2w) and clarifies 'course_id' restricts to one course with a default of all current courses. This is helpful and goes beyond the schema's type/default, though it could mention timezone handling or validation edge cases.

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 states a specific verb ('What changed') and resource ('in Moodle'), enumerating concrete change types (materials, activities, announcements, deadlines) and grouping by course. It clearly answers the intended question and differentiates itself from siblings like moodle_get_announcements or moodle_get_deadlines by being an aggregate overview.

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?

Provides a concrete use case ('Answers What is new in Moodle since Monday?') and implies it's for a broad overview across course content. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'for announcements only, use moodle_get_announcements'), so it misses explicit when-not guidance, preventing a 5.

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