moodle_config

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 does disclose that tokens are redacted, which is a valuable behavioral detail. However, it does not state whether any side effects or prerequisites exist (e.g., requires a valid config), leaving some uncertainty about 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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Show') and the object. No wasted words; every part adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero params) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and a key behavioral trait (token redaction). It could mention prerequisites or failure modes, but these are not critical for a read-only config display 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 has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers all inputs. The description adds context about the output (config path and site profiles) and the redaction behavior, which is useful beyond the empty schema. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 a specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource ('moodle-agent config path and site profiles'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like moodle_courses_list (courses) and moodle_whoami (user identity), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage (viewing configuration) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It is clear enough that an agent would know when to invoke it, but no exclusions or sibling comparisons are offered.

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