academy_module

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: content is returned in published order and technical containers are labelled. It does not discuss pagination or what happens for unpublished/missing modules.

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 12-word sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing clause about labelled technical containers is slightly opaque but does carry 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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. What remains thin is routing guidance among the many academy siblings and the meaning of the two required identifiers, which leaves the definition adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 50%: locale and idempotencyKey are self-documented, but pathId and moduleId carry no descriptions, only enums and a pattern. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does nothing to compensate for the undocumented required 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 (read) and resource (module) plus what is returned: its ordered published content. It is distinguishable from content-fetching siblings like academy_lesson or academy_path, though it stops short of clarifying the module-vs-lesson-vs-level hierarchy.

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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusion against any of the two dozen academy_* siblings. An agent must infer that this is the module-level read versus academy_lesson or academy_paths, with nothing in the description to confirm that choice.

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