list_modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral context. It conveys that the call is a read-only enumeration, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, response contents, or caveats; given the per_page parameter and no output schema, this is a meaningful gap.

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 single-sentence description is brief, front-loaded, and free of filler. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward list tool, though the brevity doubles as underspecification rather than deliberate efficiency.

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 low-complexity list operation with fully documented parameters, this is nearly sufficient: an agent knows the resource and scope. However, the lack of annotations and output schema means the return shape and pagination behavior are left unstated, leaving a moderate completeness gap.

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 input schema already documents both parameters (course_id and per_page) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no parameter detail. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting and the description does not mislead.

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?

"List modules in a course" names a specific action and resource with course scope, so an agent can tell it is a collection-read operation. It is clear enough at a glance, but the description does not explicitly contrast it with closely related siblings like get_module or list_module_items, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives; it only states the operation. With sibling tools such as get_module and list_module_items nearby, an agent receives no routing help and must infer the right use case from the name alone.

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