moodle_file_text

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 genuinely new behavioral context: the paginated slice/offset model and the set of accepted file formats, which the agent cannot get from annotations. It omits what happens on truncation boundaries and how slices are delimited.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and formats, followed by the pagination rule. Nothing is wasted and no sentence merely restates the tool name.

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 provide some return-value context (text, delivered in slices) and the chaining precondition. It would be fully complete if it described the slice response shape (e.g. whether an offset/end marker is returned) and the `max_chars` truncation control.

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 burden. It explains two of the three parameters: `fileurl` (provenance from another tool) and `offset` (resume the slice). The `max_chars` parameter and its 40000 default are never mentioned, leaving a real gap in the contract.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (extracting text from a Moodle file) and enumerates supported formats (PDF, DOCX, PPTX, XLSX, HTML, plain text), so the purpose is unmistakable. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings that also touch files, such as moodle_read or moodle_download, leaving the agent to infer which one to reach for.

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?

Clearly specifies the precondition — the `fileurl` must come from another tool — and gives explicit continuation guidance ('call again with offset to continue') for long files. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when a different sibling (e.g. moodle_download or moodle_read) would be preferable.

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