canvas_course

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds that the response covers syllabus, grading configuration, and the caller's visible enrollment scores, but it does not discuss pagination or the effect of raw mode beyond what the schema states.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a read-only detail tool.

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?

With a required course_id, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description adequately identifies the data returned. It could be more complete by clarifying how this single-course view relates to canvas_courses or canvas_enrollments, but no critical call information 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%, so course_id, raw, and page are already documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or constraints for those parameters; its only related signal is the scope of 'your visible enrollment scores.' Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the resource contents: course syllabus, grading configuration, and visible enrollment scores. This makes the tool's function clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as canvas_courses or canvas_enrollments.

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?

It states what data can be read but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives like canvas_courses for course lists or canvas_enrollments for enrollment data. The intended usage is only implied by the description.

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