mirror_course

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description usefully adds 'Never overwrites' plus the exact on-disk layout, which is behavior an agent cannot derive from the schema. It does not say what happens on partial failures or whether existing files are skipped silently.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the layout contract, then the dry_run tip. The layout block is the only elaboration and it directly serves correct invocation; nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 4-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and filesystem layout well but leaves include_forums and the course identifier format entirely undocumented. An agent could call it successfully for the defaults but would have to guess about forum inclusion.

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 0% and none of the four parameters are documented in the description itself. dest_dir and dry_run are only indirectly implied, while include_forums (default false) and course are never explained — notably the layout mentions 'Forum: <name>/<discussion>/' although forums are excluded by default, which an agent could misread.

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 concrete verb+resource+target ('Download every file of a course into dest_dir, mirroring Moodle's structure'), which clearly separates it from the flat download_files sibling via the directory-mirroring behavior. It never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts with it, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 only guidance is 'Use dry_run=True first on large courses to see what would be downloaded and how much,' which is a workflow tip rather than when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance. There is no statement of when not to use it, nor any routing to download_files or read_file for single-file needs.

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