list_course_participants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key behavioral constraint that only participants the user is permitted to see are returned, which is meaningful context beyond the annotations and helps set expectations about result scope.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core verb and object are clear, and the permission qualifier adds value without extra length. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it states purpose and scope. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (beyond the limit/offset in the schema) or any error conditions. Given the low complexity and strong annotation coverage, this is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 parameter meaning. It does not mention course_id, limit, or offset at all. While the parameter names are self-explanatory and defaults are provided, the description offers zero additional guidance, failing to clarify how limit and offset affect results or that course_id is required.

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 verb 'list' plus the resource 'course participants' is specific, and the qualifier 'que Moodle permite ver' (that Moodle allows to see) provides a clear scope. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_courses or list_my_groups, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool returns.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer that it is for retrieving participant lists. No mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or comparisons with other list tools.

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