List Courses

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the token-based visibility, which is useful. However, it omits details about pagination, sorting, response format (e.g., array of course objects), or any side effects (though listing is read-only). The description is functional but minimal.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no redundant information and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It could mention the return type (a list of courses) or potential pagination, but these are not strictly necessary for a simple list operation. The description is adequate, though not exhaustive.

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% (the only parameter active_only is described in the schema). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters; it doesn't explain the effect of active_only or its default behavior beyond what the schema already states. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, this scores 3.

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 lists Canvas courses visible to the configured token. This gives a specific verb (list), a clear resource (Canvas courses), and a scoping condition (visibility to the token), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_course (singular) and list_course_files (specific resource type).

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 this is the entry point for getting all courses, while siblings like get_course are for specific courses. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives or mention any exclusions. Given the clarity of the resource type (courses vs files/modules/etc.), the context is sufficient for an agent to infer usage.

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