list_modules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context, but for a simple read-only list operation, that is acceptable. No contradiction exists.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that states the primary purpose with no fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The tool is simple, and the annotation and schema cover the essentials. There is no output schema, but for a listing operation the description suffices. It could mention that the result includes module metadata and optionally items, but that is implied by the include_items parameter. It is adequately complete for its complexity.

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 100%, so all three parameters (course_identifier, search_term, include_items) are documented. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden. It does not clarify that 'search_term' filters by name or that 'include_items' controls item summaries, but those are already in the schema.

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 action (list) and resource (modules) with a scope (in a course). It distinguishes from siblings like list_module_items (which lists items within modules) and create_module/update_module/delete_module (which are mutations). The purpose is 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: when you need a list of modules for a given course. It does not provide explicit guidance about when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_module_items for module contents. However, given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a clear parameter for course identification, the context is sufficient for basic selection.

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