moodle_activity

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does so by specifying that the tool returns page content, links, and attached file info, and for file activities it returns file name, type, and size. It does not cover error states or authorization, but for a straightforward retrieval tool, the key behaviors are covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. The second sentence naturally clarifies a common edge case and references the sibling 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential functionality and distinguishes from related tools. It could mention error handling or authentication needs, but for a basic retrieval tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

With only one parameter 'url' and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name. It mentions 'by URL' but does not specify format, expected prefixes, or examples, leaving the agent to infer the full meaning from the name alone.

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 clearly states the tool opens a Moodle activity by URL and returns page content, links, and attached file info. It distinguishes itself from the sibling moodle_download_file by specifying that for file activities it only returns metadata, not the actual file bytes.

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 tells when to use this tool (to view activity content) and when not (to download file bytes, directing to moodle_download_file). It lacks mentions of prerequisites or error scenarios, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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