moodle_get_grades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds output content details but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or auth requirements. With strong annotation coverage, the description provides modest value beyond 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 in Chinese that conveys the tool's essence without wasted words. It efficiently states what the tool returns.

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, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately communicates the return content (scores, ranges, feedback). It is minimal but sufficient for the simplicity of the tool, though it could be slightly more explicit about the exact structure.

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 100%: the input schema already documents courseId as a Moodle course ID obtained from moodle_list_courses. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 states the tool retrieves a course's detailed grade table, listing each grade item's score, range, and feedback. The Chinese term '明细' (detailed) distinguishes it from the sibling tool moodle_get_overview_grades, which implies summary-level data.

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 purpose implicitly suggests it is for per-item grade details, and the sibling moodle_get_overview_grades likely serves summary needs. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage guidance only implied.

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