list_activities

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

The description discloses the grouping behavior and the return format ('JSON object mapping activity type -> list of activities'). However, with no annotations, it does not cover error behavior, permissions, or handling of edge cases (e.g., invalid course_id), leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args/Returns sections are clearly separated. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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 simple read-only listing tool with a single parameter and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers input, output, and grouping behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema provides no description for course_id, only type and title. The description adds 'The Moodle course ID', clarifying the meaning and thus compensating for the 0% schema coverage. For a single parameter, this is sufficient.

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 ('List') and the resource ('all activities in a course'), and further specifies the grouping by type. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_forums or list_assignments, which target specific activity types.

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 description implies when to use this tool (when you want all activities for a course), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools exist for specific activity types, but no direct guidance is offered on choosing between them.

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