get_course_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the behavior of retrieving contents, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. It adds some context about what is included (child topics, etc.), but more behavioral traits would improve transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and usage but lacks details on return values, error cases, or advanced behavioral aspects. It's adequate for a simple read operation but could be more complete for a tool with potential complexity in nested content retrieval.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (orgUnitId and moduleId) well. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage notes, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all contents within a specific course module/section'), specifying what is retrieved (child topics, sub-modules, materials). It distinguishes from siblings like get_course_modules (which lists modules) and get_course_content (which might cover broader content).

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?

It provides clear context on when to use ('to explore one section of the course in detail'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with get_course_topic or get_course_content, though the context implies it's for detailed module exploration.

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