moodle_get_course

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose the returned content set (sections, activities, descriptions, dates, file links), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, read-only nature, response size for large courses, or pagination.

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?

Two tightly scoped sentences with the capability stated first and the parameter note second. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter provenance, and a rough return-value inventory. The absence of any note on error handling or return volume is a minor gap against low complexity.

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 coverage is 0% — the schema only says integer 'Courseid' — so the description must compensate, and it does by identifying this as a Moodle course id and pointing to moodle_list_courses as its source. It still lacks any note on invalid-id behavior or format beyond integer.

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 gives a specific verb (Get) and resource (a course) and enumerates what it returns: sections, activities, descriptions, dates and file links. That distinguishes it from moodle_list_courses by implication, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 only usage signal is the parenthetical noting the courseid comes from moodle_list_courses, which implies a list-then-fetch workflow. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over moodle_list_courses or other get_* siblings, and no exclusions.

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