Get a course syllabus

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by stating that the output is HTML-stripped and truncated, which is important behavioral information for an agent to set expectations. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, it does not mention potential truncation length or whether the text includes all sections of a syllabus, leaving some ambiguity, but the description carries modest extra context.

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 description is a single, compact sentence that packs essential information: what is returned (syllabus text) and two key transformations (HTML stripped, truncated). There is zero fluff, and every word contributes to agent understanding. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the transformations are clearly parenthesized.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the output looks like but omits any mention of error conditions, authentication requirements, or whether the truncated text is still useful for specific use cases (e.g., extracting course policies). While not critical for a basic getter, the description could provide slightly more context about the expected content of a syllabus to help the agent decide if this tool is appropriate.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for the single parameter courseId, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The description does not elaborate on the parameter, but the schema already defines it as 'Canvas course id' with a flexible type. This meets the baseline for adequate parameter semantics when the schema carries the load.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a course's syllabus text, with the specific detail that it is HTML-stripped and truncated. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like canvas_get_assignment or canvas_get_course_page, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. The verb 'get' plus the resource 'syllabus' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 use this tool versus the many siblings, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no hint about alternative tools, such as canvas_smart_search for broader text retrieval, or canvas_get_course_page if heading markup is needed. The agent must infer usage 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.