get_course_contents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-dependency profile are covered. The description adds the shape of what is returned (sections, modules, links) but says nothing about ordering, depth of nesting, or whether all modules are included for large courses.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word (weekly, sections, modules, file links) narrows what to expect.

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?

Output schema exists and the single param is fully documented, so the description only needs to frame scope, which it does. Minor gaps remain around how deep the contents listing goes and whether file links are direct-download URLs.

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% and the single parameter is documented in the schema with source ('from list_courses') and format ('PLATO/Moodle numeric'). The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, 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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus the exact resources returned: weekly sections, modules, and file links for a course. An agent can tell this apart from get_course_module (singular) or list_courses, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — the agent must infer this is the tool for browsing a course's structure once it has a course_id. There is no statement of when to prefer it over get_course_module or list_quizzes, and no preconditions or exclusions.

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