moodle_get_grades

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is strictly read-only, whose grades are returned (self vs. any enrolled student), whether teacher/admin roles change the output, or how grades are structured (per-item vs. course total). For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and efficient, but the 'Args:' block merely restates the schema property and adds no meaning, so not every line earns its place. Overall size is appropriate for a simple tool.

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, minimal information is defensible, but the description still leaves the return shape and the identity of the implicated user unstated. Adequate to invoke, thin on what to expect back.

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%, but there is only one required integer parameter with an obvious meaning. The description adds a small amount of value by clarifying that courseid is a Moodle course id (as opposed to a shortname or idnumber), though it gives no format or retrieval hint.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the user's grade report for a course.' An agent knows immediately this retrieves grades. It falls short of 5 because it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like moodle_get_course or moodle_get_assignment, and 'the user's' is ambiguous about whether it is always the authenticated user.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of an alternative tool for related data (course details, assignment info). The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the grade-retrieval path.

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