canvas_module_item

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 adds real value by detailing the returned content, notably the completion requirement semantics (view, submit, minimum score) paired with the caller's own status, which is not derivable from the annotation set.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action leads and the field list follows. It is densely packed but every clause carries information about the return value.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of explaining what comes back, listing the main fields and completion-status semantics. Pagination behavior (the page/bookmark parameter) and the raw vs. transformed output difference are left entirely to the schema, a minor gap for a read tool of this complexity.

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 all five parameters (including raw and page) are already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 concrete verb+resource ("Read one module item") and enumerates what the payload contains (type, title, content link, completion requirement, status). The singular "one" implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling lister canvas_module_items, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied by "Read one module item" – an agent can infer this is the single-item counterpart to canvas_module_items, but the description never states when to pick this over canvas_module_items, canvas_module_file, or canvas_module_file_content.

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