get_work_item

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the qualifier 'visible' to indicate that only visible detail is returned, which is a useful behavioral nuance. However, it does not elaborate on return format, errors, or authentication, so it provides only minimal additional context beyond the annotations.

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 a single, compact sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the crucial identifier context. Every word earns its place, achieving maximal conciseness.

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 get-by-identifier tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states what data it returns (visible detail) and what input it needs (Moodle ID). It doesn't specify error handling or not-found behavior, but given the low complexity and the annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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?

The schema for event_id has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying that event_id is a Moodle identifier, which adds meaning beyond the bare type definition. This is valuable for an agent to correctly interpret the parameter, even though it doesn't specify format or source.

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 gets the visible detail of an event/task by its Moodle identifier. It specifies a verb ('obtiene'), the resource ('detalle visible de un evento/tarea'), and the lookup key (Moodle ID). It is distinct from listing tools, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so it loses a point for not differentiating from similar get-style tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, conditions, or sibling tools. The usage context is merely implied (you use it when you have a Moodle event ID and want details), but no explicit direction is provided, which is insufficient for an agent selecting among many tools.

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