moodle_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the tool surfaces body content, attachments, and submission status, which tells the agent what to expect back, but says nothing about permissions or whether enrollment/access checks apply.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse given the unexplained cmid, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotation gaps, the main remaining burden is teaching the agent what cmid is and how it relates to modtype. One of two required parameters is undocumented, so the definition is minimally adequate rather than 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by giving modtype example values (assign/resource/quiz), which is genuinely useful, but cmid is left completely unexplained — neither its meaning nor where to obtain it.

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 (読む/read) with a clear resource (活動/activity) and enumerates what is returned: body, attachments, and submission status. This distinguishes it from siblings like moodle_course or moodle_deadlines, 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus moodle_course or moodle_download_file, nor any preconditions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the modtype examples, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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