canvas_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the payload contents (name, description, course, member count) rather than just saying "get group". It does not mention pagination behavior despite the page parameter, which keeps it below a 5.

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 primary capability and the returned fields come first, and the sibling pointer follows. Nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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 read-only single-resource fetch with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and to know what comes back. The only omission is pagination guidance for the page parameter, a minor gap given the schema documents it.

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%, including meanings for group_id, page and raw, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format, default, or usage nuance for those parameters beyond what is already documented, which is the baseline case.

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 ("Read one group's details") and enumerates the returned fields (name, description, course, member count). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling canvas_group_members by pointing to it for member listing, so an agent can separate the two without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to canvas_group_members when member data is wanted, which is the main ambiguity for a group tool. It does not cover when-not-to-use or the relationship to canvas_groups (listing), so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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