canvas_connection_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: credentials are never exposed, errors propagate rather than being swallowed, and a generic health check is insufficient to prove Canvas auth. That last point is the most valuable disclosure and prevents false-positive verification.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed immediately by the trigger condition. 'Errors propagate.' is terse but earns its place as an explicit failure-mode contract. No padding or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with an output schema already defined, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it verifies, when to call it, the credential-safety guarantee, the health-endpoint caveat, and error behavior. No meaningful gap remains.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs, and it correctly spends its words on behavior instead.

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?

States a specific verb ('Verify') and specific objects ('configuration and live Canvas authentication'), with a scope note that it does so 'without exposing credentials'. It is clearly distinguishable from data-listing siblings like list_active_courses, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the similarly-named canvas_capabilities or canvas_document_capabilities.

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?

Gives concrete triggers: 'Call when a tool fails with 401 or to check a fresh deployment.' That is a real when-to-use rule, not vague guidance. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is provided, which keeps it short of a 5.

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