canvas_module

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 still reinforces the no-mutation boundary and names the returned fields. It does not mention pagination behavior, which matters for a tool with a 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 the scope and contents front-loaded, followed by the negative constraint and the alternative. No filler, no restating of the tool name.

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 read tool with full annotation coverage and a fully described schema, the definition covers purpose, side-effect boundary, return fields and the alternative sibling. The only gap is silent handling of paged results, which the schema mitigates.

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%, with course_id, module_id, page and raw each documented inline, including the bookmark form of page. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read one course module") and immediately enumerates the payload: name, unlock date, prerequisites, completion progress. The plural sibling canvas_modules and the item sibling canvas_module_items are both implicitly distinguished by the singular scope.

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 rules out a competing behavior ("It does not mark anything complete") and routes the agent to canvas_module_items for the item listing. Strong contextual routing, though it does not state when to prefer canvas_modules or canvas_module_item over this call.

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