list_module_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that returned items include page slugs and source links, which partially compensates for the absent output schema, but says nothing about pagination behavior for the 'page' parameter.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though brevity here partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the item contents. However, with zero schema description coverage and no guidance on pagination or parameter meaning, the definition is only minimally adequate for a three-parameter tool.

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 0% across three parameters (courseId, moduleId, page), and the description provides no meaning for any of them. An agent gets no hint about what 'page' controls or the ID formats expected beyond the schema's regex pattern.

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 ('Read') and resource ('items inside a module'), and adds what the items contain (page slugs and source links). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_modules or read_page.

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 guidance on when to use this versus list_modules, read_page, or get_syllabus. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and one-line description, with no conditions or exclusions stated.

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