List my courses

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the output content (grade, progress, staff) but does not disclose any operational behaviors beyond that, such as pagination, ordering, or timeouts. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the core purpose and then lists the key data points. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description provides a clear idea of what will be returned (courses with grade, progress, staff). There is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by naming the fields. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but these are likely negligible for a personal course list. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 sole parameter includeConcluded is fully described in the schema (coverage 100%), so the schema carries the explanation. The description does not mention parameters or add any additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('courses you are enrolled in'), and specifies exactly what data is included: grade, module progress, and teaching staff. This distinguishes it from siblings like canvas_get_grades or canvas_list_modules, which focus on narrower aspects. No ambiguity about what this tool returns.

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 implies that this is the one-stop tool to see a comprehensive overview of one's courses, including grades and progress, rather than calling multiple other tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear that it aggregates data for a single course list. Since no exclusions are provided, it slightly misses the top bar.

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