lms_get_course

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by disclosing the underlying mechanism (Moodle AJAX core_courseformat_get_state) and the shape of the payload, but says nothing about permissions, throttling, or failure modes.

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 the resource and return contents front-loaded; no padding or repetition. The second sentence is a useful implementation note rather than filler, though it is slightly technical for selection purposes.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what data comes back and how. The only real gap is the undocumented course_id semantics, which the parameter name largely covers.

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 the description never mentions course_id, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation. The single parameter's name is self-explanatory and unambiguous, which keeps this at a baseline-adequate 3 rather than lower.

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 ('Получить') and resource ('структуру курса') and enumerates the returned structure — themes, sections, modules, assignments, lectures. This implicitly separates it from the sibling lms_get_courses (list of courses), though that sibling is never named.

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: 'подробную структуру курса' suggests detail for a single course versus lms_get_courses for the catalogue, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or prerequisite statement. An agent can infer the context but is not guided.

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