canvas_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing what comes back ('ids and courses') and how that identifier plugs into downstream calls — context an agent cannot get from the hints.

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 sentences, no filler: the first defines the resource and its return contents, the second gives the follow-up usage. Purpose and usage are both front-loaded.

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 two-optional-param, paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers what it lists, what fields matter (ids, courses) and what to do with the id. Pagination and raw output are left to the schema, which is reasonable since both parameters describe themselves fully.

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 both parameters (raw, page) are documented in the schema including the bookmark pattern for pagination. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Canvas groups') and scopes it to 'the groups you belong to', which distinguishes it from canvas_group (single group) and canvas_favorite_groups. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the scope wording plus the parenthetical examples of what a group is make the intent unambiguous.

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?

Gives positive, actionable routing guidance: the returned group id should be used as context_id for group pages, files and discussions, which is exactly the follow-up call an agent needs. It stops short of stating when not to use it versus canvas_group or canvas_favorite_groups, so no explicit exclusions.

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