list_active_courses

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context by saying results include grade and enrollment details, but it never defines what 'active' actually means (unpublished vs. concluded courses, current term only?) nor mentions pagination or result limits, which matters for a user with many enrollments.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then guidance, which is the right order. The middle sentence enumerating returned fields (id, name, course_code, term, grade, enrollment) is partly wasted since an output schema already exists, but it is short and oriented toward the right decision.

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 discovery tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies nearly everything needed: purpose, return shape, and call-ordering advice. The one real gap is the undefined semantics of 'active,' which determines whether the agent should also call list_archived_courses or list_all_courses.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or confuses the empty argument object.

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 and scoped resource: 'List the user's currently active Canvas courses.' The word 'active' implicitly separates it from list_all_courses and list_archived_courses in the sibling set, but those siblings are never named, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Use this to discover what classes the user is currently enrolled in before querying anything else course-specific' gives clear positive routing: call this first as the entry point for course-scoped work. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g., 'use list_archived_courses for past terms'), leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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