canvas_communication_channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency need no restating. The description adds that results carry ids and cover email/push/SMS channels, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering, which the schema only partially covers via the page parameter.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the resource and return shape come first and the cross-tool usage hint follows. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 parameterless-list read tool with full schema coverage and complete safety annotations, the definition is nearly sufficient. A brief note on pagination or on what the raw flag changes would close the remaining gap, though the schema already covers raw.

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%, so both the raw toggle and page bookmark semantics are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the places Canvas sends you notifications") and enumerates the channel types (email addresses, push, SMS). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling canvas_notification_preferences by explaining the id link between them.

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?

"Use an id with canvas_notification_preferences" gives clear follow-up guidance, making the intended read-then-configure workflow explicit. It does not state when this tool should be skipped or what to do if no channels exist, but for a two-tool workflow the context is clear.

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