list_functions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a listing and supports filtering, but does not mention the return format, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. For a simple enumeration tool this is acceptable, but it could be more explicit about output 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?

Two sentences that are dense with information: purpose, filtering, and intended usage. The most important information is front-loaded, and every word contributes value. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, how to filter, and when to use it. Minor gaps like explicit return format are not critical given the simplicity. The description is sufficiently complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter's description ('Substring filter, empty for all') already conveys the meaning. The tool description adds examples (assign, forum, grade) and usage context, but does not fundamentally extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists all web-service functions available to the token, with optional substring filtering. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing it as a discovery mechanism ('find out what this Moodle actually allows') rather than a specific action.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use it: before assuming a tool is missing, and how to filter. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling tools (whoami, my_courses, etc.) make the purpose unambiguous. The guidance is clear and contextual.

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