get_course_grades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context about the return scope ('every enrolled student') and format ('JSON array'), which is helpful, but it does not disclose potential size/performance implications, prerequisites (e.g., course enrollment visibility), or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a clear Args/Returns structure without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan.

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) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameter semantics, and return type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling get_grades_report, nor does it mention any caveats about large result sets or permissions, leaving slight ambiguity about when this tool is preferred.

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?

The single parameter course_id is documented in the description as 'The Moodle course ID', adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare integer type. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates for the single parameter, making it clear what the agent must provide.

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 verb ('Get') and specific resource ('all grade items for a course'), and further clarifies scope by listing examples ('quizzes, assignments, etc.') and describing the return data. This distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like get_grades_report or get_assignment_submissions.

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 usage context is implied: it is the tool to call when you need all grade items/student grades for a course. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and description alone.

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