lms_get_resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it says URLs are checked against a host whitelist for SSRF protection and that the file is downloaded through an authorized session, implying authentication requirements. It still omits rate limits or response handling, but the security context is useful.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the safety mechanism. There is no redundant or filler phrasing.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, safety, and authenticated-session behavior. However, with no output schema, it does not describe what is returned (file content versus metadata shape), and the url parameter remains under-specified.

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 clarify the single url parameter. It adds a constraint by stating that the URL is checked against a host whitelist, but it does not specify URL format, accepted schemes, or how to obtain the resource URL, leaving clear gaps.

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 pair of verbs (download and retrieve metadata) and a specific resource (educational file/document from the Moodle LMS). An agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like lms_get_course or lms_get_page because this tool targets a downloadable file/document 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?

The description implies usage for Moodle file/document resources, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of siblings such as lms_get_page or lms_get_course. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, so usage is only implied.

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