moodle_get_course

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral detail by specifying that text blocks (labels) include their text and enumerating the activity types included. It does not contradict annotations. It also does not mention pagination or size limits, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses a list to enumerate included content and then explains the parameter. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff. Slightly longer than necessary but acceptable.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers the tool's function, parameter semantics, and includes a prerequisite hint. It does not mention potential errors or rate limits, but for a read-only getter with annotations covering safety, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call 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 schema provides only the parameter name and type with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that course_id is a 'course id from moodle_list_courses', giving the agent a source for the value. This is meaningful guidance beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to retrieve the structure of a course including sections, subsections, and all activity types. It differentiates from siblings like moodle_list_courses (which lists courses) and moodle_get_content (which likely retrieves specific content). The verb 'Get' and specific resource 'course structure' make it unambiguous.

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 usage for exploring a course's structure, and mentions that course_id comes from moodle_list_courses, giving a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative tools like moodle_get_content or moodle_sync_course, nor does it provide exclusions. The usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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