list_modules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through 'List', but does not mention permissions, pagination, or response format. For a simple read tool, this is minimal but acceptable.

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 consists of two concise sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing alternatives. Each sentence earns its place with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 low-complexity read tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate: it states what it does and points to related management tools. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists and the tool's function is straightforward.

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%, with course_id and include_items both clearly described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('modules in a course'), clearly stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from management tools by names and redirects to them, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to see create_module, update_module, add_module_item, and related tools for module management, serving as a clear when-not-to-use for those operations. However, it does not explicitly mention read alternatives like list_module_items, so there is a slight gap in complete usage guidance.

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