List course rubrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the parenthetical 'grading criteria' as domain context, but says nothing about return format, pagination, or any additional behavior. Since annotations carry the safety burden and the description adds minimal extra context, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains zero filler and is appropriately minimal for a simple list tool. Every word earns its place, meeting the highest standard of conciseness.

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 list operation with one parameter and strong annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly communicates the purpose and implied result (listing rubrics). However, it could explicitly mention that it returns multiple rubrics for the course, and given the sibling canvas_get_rubric, a brief note on when to use this versus that would improve completeness. Still, it is nearly complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, with courseId fully described as 'Canvas course id'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema. As the baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and no extra parameter context is provided, this score is justified.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('a course's rubrics'), and adds the clarifier 'grading criteria'. It distinguishes from the sibling canvas_get_rubric by the plural 'rubrics', though it does not explicitly contrast the two. The purpose is unambiguous for a listing tool.

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 alternatives. It does not mention that it lists all rubrics for a course, nor when to prefer it over canvas_get_rubric (which fetches a specific rubric). There is no exclusions or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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