List weekly modules in a course

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what information is reported but does not explain any side effects (e.g., read-only vs. mutation), authentication requirements, how the includeLinks and includeHidden parameters alter behavior, or potential error conditions. The description adds some context about the naming pattern but leaves significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 that is direct and free of unnecessary words. It front-loads the core behavior ('Find nested course-content modules...') and then lists the reported attributes. There is no redundancy, and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 has three parameters (two undocumented), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about how parameters affect results and what the return structure looks like. It only vaguely states that IDs, paths, dates, and document counts are reported, but doesn't specify the format, pagination, or how includeLinks/includeHidden change the output. The description is too sparse for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 only 33%, with only courseId having a descriptive text. The other two parameters, includeLinks and includeHidden, have no schema descriptions. The tool description does not compensate for this: it doesn't explain what these flags do, whether they affect filtering or output, or how they interact. For an agent to correctly set these parameters, additional meaning is needed but absent.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it finds nested course-content modules named with Week/Wk/W followed by a number and reports specific fields (IDs, paths, dates, document counts). This is a specific verb-resource pair that differentiates it from sibling tools like elearn_get_week_documents, which likely retrieves documents for a given week. The naming pattern and reported fields make the purpose unambiguous.

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 by describing what it does (finding weeks), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no guidance on when not to use it or when a different tool might be more appropriate, so it falls short of the 'explicit when/when-not' standard.

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