Материалы курса

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that each element carries type, title and link, which is useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior for an invalid/nonexistent courseId.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler: the scope and element types come first, the prerequisite pointer and return shape follow. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with full annotation coverage, this is nearly sufficient: it names the input source and the returned fields even without an output schema. The only gaps are pagination/ordering behavior and what happens for an unknown courseId, both minor here.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents it as an integer course id from course/view.php?id=... The description only restates 'по id курса' and adds no format, range, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Список элементов курса SmartLMS') and enumerates what counts as an element (files, assignments, quizzes, forums), which lets an agent distinguish it from the narrower sibling lms_list_assignments. It does not explicitly name that sibling as the alternative, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 parenthetical '(см. lms_list_courses)' gives a concrete prerequisite for obtaining courseId, which is genuine usage help. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over lms_list_assignments or lms_get_grades, and no exclusions or failure conditions are mentioned.

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