moodle_course_contents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful disclosure about the response payload (sections, activity/resource fields, section body text), but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or payload size for a potentially large course.

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?

One compact sentence that leads with the scope ('every section of a course') and follows with the returned fields. No filler, though the parenthetical is long and slightly dense.

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 no output schema the description does a decent job sketching the return shape, and there is no annotation contradiction. It remains incomplete on the two input parameters and on behavior for large courses, which is the main gap for a read tool of this breadth.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden — yet neither parameter is explained. course_id is never mentioned, and include_descriptions (default true) is only obliquely referenced via 'the section text', with no indication it can be turned off or what it controls.

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 names the resource precisely — every section of a course plus its activities/resources — and enumerates the returned fields (cmid, type, name, dates, files, links). That distinguishes it from siblings like moodle_courses and moodle_assignments, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical about section text holding weekly readings and 'for next class' notes hints at a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no named alternative among the 17 siblings. An agent must infer that this is the tool for drilling into one course.

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