get_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description shoulders the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read-style operation ('Get'), but does not mention errors, auth requirements, return value shape, or side effects, leaving important behavior opaque.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it offers so little detail that it reads more like a label than a full tool explanation.

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 get-by-ID tool with two fully documented required parameters, this is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits useful context about the returned module and how to choose between get_module and list_modules.

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%, with course_id and module_id already documented as 'Course ID' and 'Module ID'. The description adds no parameter-level insight, but the schema fully covers the parameters, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific module'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The word 'specific' weakly distinguishes it from sibling list_modules, but it does not explicitly contrast with related listing tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use get_module versus list_modules or list_module_items. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage context solely from the tool name.

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