learnus_list_activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds two behavioral traits beyond them: the listing surfaces 'unknown activity types' (so results may include unclassified entries) and it can reveal cmids, which explains why it is a lookup entry point. It omits pagination or result-size behavior, so it is not perfect.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the capability, followed by use conditions and exclusions. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 read-only single-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (the activity type set), when to call it, and what it is not for; annotations cover the safety profile. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% for the single courseId parameter, whose description already specifies it is an exact Moodle course ID from a LearnUs course tool. The description only implies scoping to 'one course' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

The description names a specific verb (Lists) and enumerates the exact resource set (assignments, VODs, resources, folders, boards, unknown activity types) scoped to one course. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like learnus_get_assignment (details) and learnus_get_learning_overview (cross-course summaries).

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?

It gives explicit triggering conditions (user asks what activities/materials exist in a known course; a cmid must be discovered) and explicit exclusions (full activity details, cross-course summaries), naming the class of alternatives to prefer instead. Nothing is left to inference.

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