moodle_get_course_contents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by stating that the output includes cmid and module type, is organized by week, lists all activities and resources, and that external links (external=true) cannot have their content retrieved. This goes beyond the annotation safety profile and gives practical usage caveats.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a useful caveat in the second sentence. There is no fluff or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (weekly structure, all activities/resources, cmid, module type) and its limitation (external links). It lacks details on exact output formatting or error handling, but for a read-only list tool, this is adequate and nearly 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for courseId, explaining it is a Moodle course id obtained from moodle_list_courses. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's function: '一门课的完整结构：按周次列出全部活动和资源，带 cmid 和模块类型' (complete course structure, listing all activities and resources by week, with cmid and module type). This is a specific verb+resource description that distinguishes it from siblings like moodle_list_courses (which lists courses) and moodle_get_assignment (which gets a single assignment).

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 provides a prerequisite for the courseId parameter ('从 moodle_list_courses 拿'), which is a usage guideline. It also mentions a limitation (external links cannot be fetched). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give exclusions or alternative tool names.

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