moodle_get_content

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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: opening the page counts as a view in Moodle, and the output is Markdown containing links. This is valuable and not contradictory.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by relevant use context and parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 tool has only one parameter, an output schema, and safety-relevant annotations, the description covers the essential workflow, input provenance, and a subtle behavioral caveat. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only exposes an integer named activity_id. The description adds essential meaning: it is a cmid of a page or label, and it should be sourced from moodle_get_course or moodle_search. With 0% schema coverage, this fully compensates.

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 action ('Read the text'), a concrete resource type ('Moodle page or text block'), and the output format ('as Markdown, with the links it contains'). This clearly distinguishes it from list/download/sync sibling tools.

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?

It provides clear usage context by noting these texts often contain instructions, rules, and reading lists, and it tells the caller where to obtain the correct activity_id ('from moodle_get_course or moodle_search'). It does not explicitly contrast with moodle_list_resources or moodle_download_resource, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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