list_course_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return fields (user ID, full name, email, etc.) and deduplication behavior. However, it omits details like default ordering, handling of suspended users, permission requirements, and error behavior, leaving several behavioral aspects unclear.

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 tightly written in four sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds essential information: scope, parameter guidance, return fields, deduplication, and a reminder about category ID sourcing. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description covers return fields and deduplication. It does not address pagination behavior (limit/offset are parameters but not discussed), error cases, or parameter constraints like partial matching behavior. Still, it provides enough context for typical use.

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%, providing baseline explanations. The description adds value by specifying the mutual exclusivity constraint (exactly one of the three identifiers) and clarifying that categoryid aggregates across courses. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 lists enrolled users in a specific Moodle course or across all courses in a category. It distinguishes from siblings like search_users and list_courses by specifying the scope and mentioning deduplication in category mode.

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 instructs to provide exactly one of courseid, coursename, or categoryid, and advises using an exact category ID from list_categories. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_user or search_users, but the context is clear enough for most agents.

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