get_course_modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only action through the verb 'List' and states the scope ('all modules and their items'), but it does not disclose potential behaviors like pagination, hidden content, or whether anything could be modified. This is adequate but not rich.

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 very concise: a single purpose sentence and one argument line. The main function is front-loaded, and no filler exists. The minor typo 'get_c_courses' does not undermine the structural quality.

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?

The tool is simple with an output schema available, so return values do not need to be explained. The required course_id is documented with a source, and the optional account is a minor omission. The lack of annotations slightly reduces completeness, but overall an agent has enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 must compensate. It adds real meaning for course_id by specifying it is numeric and telling the agent to obtain it from get_courses. The optional account parameter is left unexplained, but since it has a default and is not required, the critical parameter is well covered.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and names the resource 'modules and their items' for a course, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_course_files or get_course_pages. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast itself with a similar tool, so it stops short of the highest rating.

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 one usage pointer: the course_id should come from get_courses (written as get_c_courses). This is helpful for prerequisites but does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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