list_courses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does little: it does not say whether this returns only enrolled courses or every course visible to the account, whether archived/concluded courses are included, whether results are paginated, or whether any permission is required. Because an output schema exists, return shape need not be described, but the scope and safety profile of the call remain 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 definition is short and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The Python docstring 'Args:' formatting is slightly noisy but does not obscure meaning, and no sentence is wasted.

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 simple one-parameter list tool with an output schema, this is close to adequate, but the absence of annotations plus the undefined course scope (enrolled vs. all, active vs. concluded) leaves a real gap an agent would want filled. The default-account behavior is a useful addition that partly offsets this.

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 for the single 'account' parameter. It does partly: it explains the parameter is the school account and that it defaults to the active account, but it never says what form the value takes (name, ID, slug) or how to discover valid values via list_school_accounts.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List available courses from Canvas'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_course_files or get_course_page. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from account-management siblings such as list_school_accounts or state whose courses (enrolled vs. all in the account) are returned.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when to call switch_school_account or list_school_accounts first. The only usage signal is the parenthetical that account defaults to the active account, which is helpful context but not selection guidance.

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