list_module_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is adequate for a simple retrieval. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or the exact scope of 'all items' beyond what the name suggests.

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 a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It contains no unnecessary filler or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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?

This is a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema. The description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks context about what 'items' includes (e.g., assignments, quizzes), any return format expectations, or whether the list is paginated. Given the low complexity, a slightly richer description would enhance completeness.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, but the schema already provides sufficient details for the two required IDs.

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 'List all items in a module' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (items in a module). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'list_modules' by specifying items rather than modules, but does not explicitly call out this distinction or elaborate on what constitutes an item.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or related tools such as 'list_modules' or 'add_module_item'.

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