list_modules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' and specifies output content (publish status, item counts), but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating or mention any caveats such as pagination, permissions, or data freshness. This is adequate for a simple read tool but lacks explicit confirmation of side-effect-free 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, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and details. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or irrelevant information. It is efficiently structured and immediately understandable.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and an available output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essential context: what the tool does and what information it returns. It does not explain optional behaviors like ordering or pagination, but these are not critical for a simple listing tool, especially when the output schema likely provides the return shape.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only mentions 'in a course' which ties to the parameter, but does not elaborate on what course_identifier means, how to obtain it, or any format expectations beyond the schema's anyOf string/integer. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value over 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 states a specific action ('List modules'), a specific resource ('in a course'), and provides clarifying output details ('with publish status and item counts'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_course_structure or list_courses, as it focuses specifically on modules with additional metadata.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer list_modules over get_course_structure or any other sibling, nor does it state any conditions or exclusions. The description only describes what it does, not the context for its use.

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