Get Module

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

The description states it retrieves details, which is consistent with readOnlyHint=true. It doesn't add extra behavioral context beyond what the annotation already conveys, such as side effects or permissions. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description doesn't need more, but it also doesn't add any additional transparency beyond the obvious read operation.

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, concise sentence that clearly states the purpose without unnecessary elaboration. It front-loads the action and resource effectively.

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 operation with well-described parameters and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is adequate. It distinguishes from list operations (like list_modules) by explicitly saying 'single module'. However, it could mention what 'details' includes, but given the simplicity, it's complete enough.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters ('The Canvas course ID' and 'The Canvas module ID'), which are clear and self-explanatory. The description adds no further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 function: retrieving details for a single module. It specifies the resource (module) and the action (get details), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_module or update_module. The 'by ID' phrase, though vague, is sufficient given the schema clarifies the required identifiers.

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 implies usage for a specific module by ID, distinguishing from list operations like 'List modules' (which is a sibling). However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over other tools like 'get_course_structure' or any alternatives, nor does it provide context about prerequisites like course enrollment.

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