moodle_site_info

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the description's value-add is the missingFunctions semantics — API functions the token lacks, and the consequence that dependent tools will fail. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields; it stops short of describing the shape of the returned payload.

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 dense sentence with the payload inventory front-loaded after the colon and the usage trigger placed last. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the fields, including the non-obvious missingFunctions. It omits the exact format/content of missingFunctions entries, a minor gap for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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-like purpose (retrieve identity and site metadata) and enumerates exactly what is returned: user name/id, site name, Moodle version, MCP server version, and missingFunctions. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list/get tools, which deal with courses, assignments, and submissions.

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?

Explicitly says to 'start here if it is unclear whether the connection works', giving a concrete trigger for invocation. It does not name alternative or exclusionary tools, but the diagnostic framing is enough to route the agent correctly.

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