List modules in a curriculum area

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains output fields and suggests client-side filtering, which adds useful context. However, it does not mention the local caching mechanism exposed via the 'refresh' parameter, potential side effects away from read-only retrieval, or error behavior, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 composed of three sentences that front-load the main action and include helpful examples. It is efficient but slightly dense due to parentheticals and multiple clauses, so it loses a point for not being as crisp as possible.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return fields, prerequisite calls, and intended usage patterns. It lacks detail on pagination, error cases, and caching behavior, but given the tool's simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by telling users to get StuPO and semester from get_degree_program_structure and by clarifying the 'area' parameter with examples, going beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 specifies the action ('List') and the resource ('modules assigned to one curriculum area of a degree program'), with concrete examples of area names. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing get_degree_program_structure as the source for required parameters, making the tool's specific role unambiguous.

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 states that StuPO and semester should be obtained from get_degree_program_structure first, giving clear context for when to use this tool. It also advises filtering results client-side. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_modules for global module searches, so exclusions are not fully spelled out.

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