canvas_peer_reviews

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that by disclosing that results are permission-scoped ('Canvas only shows what your role allows'), which warns the agent that an empty or partial list may reflect role limits rather than absence of reviews. It does not mention pagination behavior despite 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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the second sentence contributes a non-obvious permission caveat rather than filler. Nothing is redundant with the name or the schema.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so concisely: reviews with their status, split between reviews you must do and reviews of your work. For a four-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient; the only gap is that pagination and the raw flag's effect on the response shape are left to the schema.

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, assignment_id, page, and raw are each documented at the schema level. The description adds no further parameter meaning, such as how the two categories (reviews to do vs. reviews of your work) relate to any filter or field. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the peer reviews of one assignment') and narrows the scope to what is 'visible to you'. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like canvas_assignment or canvas_submission, none of which deal with peer reviews. It falls short of a 5 only because it does not explicitly name a contrasting alternative.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs a reviewer's or reviewee's peer-review status for a given assignment. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing and no stated prerequisites (e.g., that peer reviews must be enabled on the assignment).

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