canvas_conversation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit for disclosing a genuinely non-obvious side-effect distinction — that reading does NOT mark the conversation read, which is Canvas's default and cannot be inferred from the annotations. It says nothing about pagination behavior or what messages contain, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

A single sentence with the key differentiator ('WITHOUT marking it read') front-loaded and emphasized. Zero filler and nothing buried.

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 three-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavior and the surprising side-effect. With no output schema, a short note on what is returned (message list, HTML vs raw via the raw flag) would round it out, but nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, and all three parameters (conversation_id, page, raw) are already documented in the schema, including the bookmark paging pattern and the unmodified-JSON flag. The description adds no additional semantics about these parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a Canvas Inbox conversation and its messages'), which cleanly separates it from the list-level sibling canvas_conversations. It does not explicitly name that sibling as the alternative, but 'conversation' singular plus the schema note 'from canvas_conversations' makes the pairing obvious.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you call this when you have a single conversation_id and want its messages. No explicit when-not or alternative tool is named, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing to fetch canvas_conversations first, other than a passing hint in the schema) are spelled out in the description.

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