lms_get_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the return behavior: cleaned structured page text and links to attached files, which matters especially since no output schema exists.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the action and resource, and then concisely states the return value. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description gives the essential action, resource type, required identifier, and return contents. It does not cover permission requirements or where module IDs come from, but the core invocation context is complete enough.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented parameter. It only says 'по ID модуля', which largely restates the field name 'module_id' and does not explain where to obtain the ID, its expected format, or any constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('Прочитать') and resource ('текстовый материал или страницу лекции'), and specifies the Moodle module type '(mod/page)'. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as lms_get_resource.

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 implied by 'по ID модуля', which gives the required identifier context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like lms_get_resource or lms_get_course. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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