catch_me_up_on_course

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about what is aggregated and that it includes a template summary suitable for direct output. It does not disclose that a full fan-out digest is likely expensive/slow or that a course_id must resolve — meaningful gaps for an open-world aggregator.

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?

Two compact blocks: a front-loaded one-line framing followed by a scannable enumeration of contents. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail need not be re-explained, and the safety annotations cover the mutation question. The remaining gap is the time-window parameters, which are undocumented anywhere and are central to controlling this digest's scope.

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% and there are three parameters, so the description must carry the burden — but it never mentions course_id, lookback_days, or lookahead_days by name. 'Upcoming' and 'recent' faintly gesture at the lookahead/lookback windows, but defaults (14/7 days) and units are left entirely to the schema titles, which convey nothing.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('rich per-course digest — what is going on in this class') and enumerates the exact payload (grade, upcoming work, missing/overdue, announcements, discussions, grader feedback, module progression). The 'per-course' scoping distinguishes it from cross-course siblings like whats_new or canvas_dashboard, but it never explicitly names the nearest siblings such as missing_work_audit or canvas_course_home, so differentiation is only partial.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'what is going on in this class' and by the enumerated contents, which suggest a broad orientation request rather than a targeted lookup. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over canvas_course_home, missing_work_audit, or whats_new, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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