find_course_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. 'Find' implies a read-only action but the description does not state that nothing is modified, what the return value looks like, or how matching by name behaves.

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 sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though slightly under-specified for a tool with no annotations or output 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?

Without annotations or an output schema, this description is too sparse: it omits return format, matching behavior, error cases, and how this tool relates to siblings like list_course_modules or download_module_files. An agent can guess intent but cannot fully predict outcomes.

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 clarifies that 'по названию' corresponds to the query parameter and the course page context corresponds to courseUrl. It does not explain query format, exact versus partial matching, or other parameter constraints.

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 states a specific action (find), resource (material or assignment), location (course page), and search criterion (by title/name). It does not explicitly contrast with list_course_modules, but the 'by name' search semantics help distinguish it.

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 'find ... by name' implies this tool is for locating a specific known material or assignment. However, it never states when not to use it or names alternatives like list_course_modules for browsing all materials.

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