List my peer reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the default filtering to only the user's assigned reviews and how to opt out, though it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or returned review fields.

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 immediately follows with the key behavioral nuance. Every word contributes useful information and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 3-parameter list tool with read-only and non-destructive annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter override. While no output schema exists and the description does not detail response fields, that is not necessary for selecting and invoking the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents courseId and assignmentId. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the mineOnly parameter's default behavior and its effect, which helps the agent decide whether to override it.

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 uses the specific verb 'returns' and clearly identifies the resource as 'peer reviews for an assignment.' It also clarifies the default scope ('assigned to YOU'), which distinguishes this tool from other Canvas listing tools and makes its purpose immediately understandable.

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 indicates when to use the tool by framing it as listing peer reviews for an assignment, and explicitly explains how to change the default behavior with 'mineOnly=false for all.' It does not name alternative tools outright, but the context is sufficiently clear for selecting this tool over the listed siblings.

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