moodle_list_forums

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and idempotent, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral insight about the URL field (f= vs cmid), which is a potential pitfall, and notes the data source for cmid. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent avoid misuse.

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 long, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. It states the outcome, then provides a critical caveat and cross-reference to related tools 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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It states what is returned (forum list with unread counts and subscription status), and includes necessary context about URL field semantics and how to obtain cmid for related operations. No output schema exists, but the description provides enough information for correct invocation.

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 fully documents the single parameter courseId with a clear description ('Moodle 课程 id，从 moodle_list_courses 拿'). The tool description does not add parameter-specific details, so it meets the baseline for full 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 clearly states the tool lists forums for a course, including unread counts and subscription status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like moodle_get_forum_discussions by explicitly clarifying the relationship between the forum instance id and cmid.

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 practical guidance: it warns that the f= parameter in the URL is not a cmid and directs users to moodle_get_course_contents for the cmid needed by moodle_get_forum_discussions. This gives clear context for when to use this tool and how to correctly interact with related tools.

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