get_course_contents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON array of sections/modules) and implies read-only behavior via 'Get', but does not mention error conditions, permissions, or pagination. This is a moderate gap given no annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with the main purpose in the first sentence and clear Arg/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema exists), and the description adequately covers purpose and return structure. However, it omits details about potential errors or access restrictions, and it does not differentiate itself from the sibling list_activities tool. Given the simplicity, this is acceptable but not fully 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?

Schema has only one parameter with no description coverage (0%). The description compensates by explaining 'course_id: The Moodle course ID', adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's type and title. It does not include examples or edge cases, but fully explains the parameter.

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 ('Get') and resource ('all sections and activities/resources in a course'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_grades_report or list_assignments. The scope is explicit and 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 context is clearly stated: use this to retrieve a course's full content structure. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., if only grades are needed), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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