moodle_get_assignment

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by listing the specific data categories returned, which is not present in the annotations. It does not disclose additional traits like authentication or rate limits, but the safety envelope is fully covered by 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and output in a concise manner. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description offers a solid overview of the returned data. It could be more explicit about the need for cmid, but that is covered by the schema. The listed fields provide sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 100% coverage for the only parameter cmid with a clear description ('course module id'). The tool description does not add any further parameter explanation, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly specifies the tool's function: it returns a status table for a single assignment, enumerating the contained data (submission status, grading status, remaining time, submitted files, comments). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like moodle_list_assignments (list overview) and moodle_get_grades (grades).

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 the tool is used to inspect the detailed status of one assignment, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The need for a cmid is implied but not stated as a usage prerequisite beyond the schema.

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