get_course_modules

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 discloses the return values (module names, descriptions, and ModuleIds) and the tool's purpose as a read operation. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, pagination, or rate limits, which are important for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise and well-structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose and return values, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 partially compensates by listing return values. However, for a tool with one parameter and no structured behavioral hints, it lacks details on error cases, authentication needs, or output format specifics, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'orgUnitId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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's purpose: 'Get the main sections/modules of a course' specifies the verb (get) and resource (course modules). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_course_content' by focusing on high-level sections rather than detailed content, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The mention of 'high-level overview' helps differentiate it from more granular 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?

The description provides implied usage guidance: 'Use for a high-level overview of course organization' suggests when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives like 'get_course_content' or 'get_course_module' (singular), leaving some ambiguity about sibling tool selection.

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