list-module-items

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about item types (pages, quizzes, files, etc.) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or return format. This partial additional context warrants a score of 3.

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 a single sentence that is direct and free of filler. It communicates the essential information efficiently, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

This is a simple tool with only two required parameters and no output schema. The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and scope, including examples of item types. While it omits details like pagination or return structure, the tool's simplicity and the readOnlyHint allow a score of 4.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters, each with clear descriptions ('The ID of the course', 'The ID of the module'). The description reinforces the use of moduleId but adds no syntactic or format details beyond the schema. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('list'), resource ('its items'), and context ('Given a module ID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list-modules (which lists modules) and get-module-item (which fetches a single item). The examples of item types (pages, quizzes, files) further clarify scope.

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 clearly implies the usage context: when you have a module ID and need its items. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous. Sibling tool names like create-module-item and delete-module-item make the distinction obvious, so a 4 is appropriate.

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