moodle_local

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: credentials are never returned, which tells the agent the output is safe to surface. It says nothing about failure behavior or what a failed connection check looks like, so it adds context but not rich detail.

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?

A single tight sentence with the credential-safety clause placed after the core purpose, so the operation is front-loaded. No filler, though "dedicated login session" is slightly vague phrasing.

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 and no parameters, the description is the only place a caller could learn what a successful or failed check returns (status, error signaling). It covers scope and the credential guarantee but leaves the return contract unstated, which is a real gap for a diagnostic tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 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 names a specific verb ("Check") and resource ("Moodle connection and dedicated login session"), which is a diagnostic/health-check operation distinct from the sibling tools (list_courses, download_resource, sync_courses), none of which perform connectivity checks. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 call this versus other tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only hint is the implied 'verify before acting' role, which the agent must infer from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds genuinely new context: it requires prior explicit user confirmation and it never migrates data, which is a meaningful scope boundary for an approval-persisting write. It does not describe failure behavior if dataDir mismatches, but that is a minor gap given annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the precondition, then the constraint, then the exclusion. Every sentence adds distinct information with no repetition of the tool name or schema.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the precondition, the constraint on dataDir, and the alternative tool. The only omission is what happens on a mismatched dataDir (error vs. no-op), which is not essential for selection.

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 carry the burden. It does clarify dataDir semantics ('must match current settings'), which is valuable, but the 'confirmed' parameter is only implicit in the prose and its const:true constraint is left to the schema. Partial compensation warrants a baseline 3.

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 a specific verb and resource ('persist setup approval') and clarifies the boundary ('never migrates data'), which separates it from a full setup/migration flow. It is clear but does not explicitly position itself against the sibling tools (list_courses, sync_courses, etc.), which are read/selection oriented.

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?

It states the precondition precisely ('After explicit user confirmation of the displayed course list and current data root') and names the alternative path for a different root ('use npm run setup'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered with the routing condition spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that existing versions are retained ('Keep old versions'), which explains the non-destructive profile. It does not describe overwrite semantics, required permissions, or failure handling.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and destination front-loaded and the versioning caveat placed last. Every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter write tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description covers the operation and its non-destructive behavior but omits where ids originate, what the 'approved materials directory' resolves to, and what happens on re-download of an existing module. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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% and the description supplies no parameter information at all. The names courseId and moduleId are largely self-explanatory, but the description never clarifies accepted id forms (they come from list_courses/list_resources) or what a 'module' scope means for a file/folder download.

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 concrete verb (Download) plus the exact resource (a discovered file/folder module in an approved course) and destination (the approved materials directory). This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like list_resources, but it never names an alternative tool to complete the routing decision.

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 phrases 'discovered' and 'approved course' imply prerequisites (discovery/selection must have happened first), which is useful implicit guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus sync_courses or list_resources, and no stated exclusions or preconditions for the call itself.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful disclosure that authentication data is excluded from the response, but says nothing about return format or completeness of the settings view.

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?

A single compact sentence with the main content front-loaded. The trailing 'without authentication data' qualifier is slightly awkward but earns its place as a scoping disclosure.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns and only partially does so: it names course IDs and output directories but omits other settings fields an agent might expect. Adequate but incomplete for a settings-reading tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and instead spends its words describing the output content.

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 (Show) and a specific resource (sync settings, realized as approved course IDs and local output directories). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names or contrasts with siblings such as list_courses or check_connection.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The phrase 'without authentication data' hints that this is a scoped/redacted variant of a settings view, but the agent is left to infer when to prefer it over the other seven siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that hidden courses are included, but the 'only explicitly approved IDs may be synchronized' sentence is ambiguous about whether it constrains this read call at all.

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 short sentences with the core capability front-loaded and no padding. The trailing sentence about approved IDs is terse but does not clearly belong to a list operation, which slightly weakens the structure.

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 parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description only needs to convey what is enumerated and the scope. It does that, though the cryptic sync/approval sentence leaves a small ambiguity unresolved.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-level for the description to clarify, and it does not mislead about inputs.

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 and resource (list enrolled My Modules courses) and adds a scope detail (including hidden courses) that an agent could not infer from the name. It does not, however, distinguish this list tool from siblings like list_resources or sync_courses.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The second sentence hints at a sync-approval workflow but never says how it relates to calling this tool versus sync_courses or select_courses.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the 'visible'/'approved' scoping qualifier and the shape of the returned fields, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or auth requirements beyond the annotation hints.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and scope, with no filler. Slightly awkward phrasing ('observed IDs') costs it nothing materially.

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 1-parameter read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description tells the agent what it gets back and the scope. Gaps around pagination and how 'visible' is determined remain, so it is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only weakly compensates: 'for an approved course' implies courseId must reference an approved course but gives no format or validation detail. The parameter name courseId is self-evident, so meaning is not lost, but no real added semantics.

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 (List) and resource (resources) scoped to an approved course, and even enumerates the returned fields (IDs, titles, types, format metadata). It is clearly separable from list_courses and download_resource by resource type, though it never names a sibling 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?

The phrase 'for an approved course' implies the context in which this applies, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative (download_resource) for actually fetching content, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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

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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations: it discloses that the operation is a replacement, that an empty array clears without deleting files, that it is a local-only change, and that user approval is required. The annotations already cover idempotency and destructiveHint=false; the only unexplained point is openWorldHint=true, which sits in mild tension with 'Local change only' but reasonably reads as 'no remote mutation' rather than a true conflict.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (precondition, effect, edge case, scope), with the primary action front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations present, the description covers precondition, mutation semantics, empty-input behavior, and scope. It leaves unaddressed what happens with invalid or unmatched IDs and whether the new selection is returned, which would be the only remaining gaps.

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%, yet the description explains what courseIds contains ('observed My Modules IDs') and what an empty array means, which is the key semantic the schema cannot convey. It stops short of noting constraints like the 200-item cap or positive-integer requirement, but those are already in the schema.

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 and target state: 'replace the local course selection with observed My Modules IDs'. The phrases 'Local change only' and 'without deleting files' distinguish it behaviorally from write/transfer siblings like sync_courses and download_resource, so an agent can tell what this mutates without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('After user approval') and an explicit edge-case usage ('Empty courseIds clears selection'). It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when to prefer this over sync_courses, so the routing guidance is incomplete rather than absent.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the sync is incremental (not full), is manual/one-shot, and operates on locally approved courses. The ETag bypass detail is the kind of hidden behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the parameter detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-required-parameter, single-boolean tool with no output schema and annotations already declaring safety and idempotency, the description covers the essentials: what runs, on what scope, and what the flag does. Only the default behavior of forceContentCheck and any result semantics are unstated.

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 0% and the single boolean parameter has no schema description, so the description carries the burden. 'forceContentCheck bypasses ETag validation' fully explains the parameter's effect, which is the key semantic an agent needs. It does not state the default when omitted, keeping it short of a 5.

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 ('sync') and resource ('courses'), scoped to 'locally approved courses' with 'one manual incremental sync'. This distinguishes it from list/select siblings by making clear it performs an actual sync rather than a listing or selection, though it never explicitly names the alternatives.

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 phrase 'Perform one manual incremental sync' implies this is an on-demand trigger rather than a scheduled/automatic sync, which gives some usage context. However, it does not say when an agent should invoke it versus check_connection, get_sync_settings, or confirm_setup, nor any prerequisite state.

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