Get Module Details

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already clear. The description adds value by specifying the batch capability (max 20 items, though that's also in schema) and the nuanced parameter mapping (moduleId as courseModuleId). It also discloses that it returns attempt and academic-rule state, which is richer behavioral context. No contradiction with 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 two sentences, dense but not bloated. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the special-case parameter guidance is in the second. It earns its length by covering return contents and a critical nuance, though it could tighten wording.

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 moderate complexity (batch operation with three fields per item, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, return contents, and a key parameter nuance. It doesn't specify the output shape (no output schema exists), but for a read-only batch inspector with annotations covering safety, this is adequate. Slight gap: it doesn't clarify what 'academic-rule state' means or how term affects results, but overall complete enough.

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 does not explicitly explain what courseModuleId or moduleVersionId are beyond what the schema property descriptions say (only courseModuleId has a schema description; moduleVersionId and organizationTermId have none). However, the description clarifies the critical relationship between moduleId and courseModuleId in a connectedModule record, which is semantic value beyond the schema. organizationTermId's purpose (optional term for learning units) is implied but not fully explained.

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 ('Batch-inspect') and resource ('module versions'), and enumerates the returned data (catalog settings, requirements, module info, associated learning units, attempt and academic-rule state). It distinguishes itself from sibling get_module_attempts by covering more than just attempts, though it doesn't name a specific sibling. The 'Batch' qualifier signals it handles multiple modules at once, which differentiates it from single-module alternatives.

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 usage context (inspecting several module versions, optionally including a term) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_module_attempts or get_learning_unit_details. It gives a concrete structural note about passing moduleId as courseModuleId in a connectedModule record, which helps in that particular case, but there is no general 'when to use' vs alternatives guidance.

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