list_user_courses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the requirement for an exact userid and the lookup flow, but does not describe what happens on invalid input, error handling, return format, pagination behavior, or authentication needs. The description is partially transparent but lacks key behavioral details.

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 at five sentences, each serving a clear purpose. It is front-loaded with the main action, then provides prerequisite steps and fallback guidance. No redundancy, and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description focuses on usage flow but does not explain return values, pagination details, or error handling. It is complete for the user's decision context but incomplete for behavioral understanding. The parameter schema covers the parameter descriptions, but the overall tool behavior is not fully described.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the userid requirement already present in the schema but adds no additional meaning or context for the limit or offset parameters. It does not enhance understanding beyond what the structured schema provides.

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 courses for a specific Moodle user ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_courses (all courses) and search_users (user lookup) by emphasizing the exact userid requirement.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: when an exact userid is known. It recommends using get_user for exact email/username lookups and search_users for name-based searches, and instructs the agent to ask the operator to choose if multiple matches occur. This is thorough and actionable.

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