Get Module Item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so 'Read-only' in the description is redundant. It does add genuine value by disclosing the returned payload (completion requirement plus whether it was met), but says nothing about permissions, error behavior for non-existent items, or scope.

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 sentences with zero waste; the capability and payload are front-loaded and the prerequisite pointer trails it. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 three-parameter read-only fetch with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers all an agent needs: what it fetches, what it returns, and where the ID comes from. No output schema exists, but the key return fields are summarized.

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 description coverage is 100% and all three parameters carry their own descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's item_id sourcing hint merely restates the schema text for that field and adds no new meaning for course_id or module_id.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one item inside a module') and enumerates the item types, plus names the key payload (completion requirement and completion status). The mention of list_module_items as the ID source implicitly distinguishes it from the list sibling, though it doesn't explicitly say 'use list_module_items to enumerate, this to fetch one'.

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?

Usage is only implied through the prerequisite chain ('Get item_id from list_module_items'), which is already documented in the schema for that parameter. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no comparison to alternatives such as get_module_item_sequence or smart_search.

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