Get Module Attempts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds the independence behavior: each module is returned independently so one unavailable record does not discard the others. This is useful beyond annotations, but no further behavior (e.g., errors, pagination) is disclosed, so the description complements but does not greatly expand on annotation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence enumerates the exact data returned; the second clarifies independence and provides the ID source. Information is front-loaded and each word adds value.

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 single-parameter batch retrieval tool with no output schema, the description lists the data categories and warns against partial failure. However, it does not specify the response structure (e.g., array of objects keyed by moduleVersionId) or any edge cases, which could be important given the independence claim. The lack of an output schema increases the description's burden, and it only partially satisfies it.

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 schema provides only type and constraints for moduleVersionIds (array of strings, 1-20 items), with zero description coverage. The description compensates by stating these IDs come from study plans or connectedModule records, giving semantic context. It does not detail the format of each string or the relationship between IDs and the batch response, but the source hint is a meaningful addition beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it retrieves a batch of attempt history, assessment requirements, attendance fulfillment, grades, and academic rules for several module versions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_module_details or get_exam_details, which focus on other specific aspects. The tool's scope is 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?

It provides explicit guidance on where to obtain the required IDs (from study plans or connectedModule records), which helps an agent know when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the detailed content makes it clear this is for batch academic data rather than individual lookup, so the usage context is reasonably clear.

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