list-modules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds the 'all modules' scope (no filtering) and the optional inline items behavior, but these are largely evident from the schema. No additional behavioral details like pagination or limits are provided.

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, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no unnecessary words. It earns its place without any fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, read-only annotation, no output schema). The description covers the core purpose and optionally mentions inline items. It lacks details like return format or pagination, but these are not critical for a straightforward list operation, making it reasonably 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 coverage is 100%—both courseId and includeItems have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it sits at the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Return all modules in a course (optionally inline items)' uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('modules in a course'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list-module-items which handle module items. It also hints at the optional includeItems parameter.

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 when you need a list of modules, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for item-level details, use list-module-items'). There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so it lands at the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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