ws_raw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return shape: 'Returns `{ data }` on success, structured `meta.code` + `isError: true` on failure,' giving agents a concrete expectation of both success and error behavior. The 'escape hatch' metaphor additionally signals that this tool bypasses typical facades, though it does not detail potential side effects or validation behavior.

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 two tightly crafted sentences. The first front-loads the core purpose, and the second packs in return format and usage guidance. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 generic escape-hatch tool, the description covers the essentials: what it does, when to prefer alternatives, and the shape of success/failure responses. It could also warn that function calls are not validated and may have destructive effects, but the 'escape hatch' label and the nudge toward high-level facades partially cover that.

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 by explaining parameter meaning. It only says 'with arbitrary parameters,' which essentially repeats the free-form nature of the `params` object already visible in the schema. It does not explicitly state that `params` are passed directly to the Moodle function or how they map to function arguments, leaving a significant gap for a tool that is inherently parameter-driven.

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 opens with 'Escape hatch: call any Moodle Web Services function with arbitrary parameters,' which clearly and specifically identifies the tool's purpose and scope. This distinguishes it from high-level sibling tools that each target a single Moodle operation, positioning ws_raw as a generic passthrough.

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 closing sentence, 'Prefer high-level facades when they cover your use case,' gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It also labels the tool an 'escape hatch,' which implies it should be a fallback option, not the first choice.

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