canvas_rubrics

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: results are scoped to courses 'that you can see' and each item includes criteria and point ranges, which is useful since there is no output schema.

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: capability first, disambiguation second. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 responsibly summarizes what comes back ('criteria and point ranges'), and pagination is fully covered by the schema's page parameter. Only the visibility scoping and the singular-sibling relationship remain underspecified, which is a minor gap for 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 course_id, page, and raw are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about the page/bookmark pagination pattern or when to set raw, 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: 'List the grading rubrics of a course', and adds the return content ('criteria and point ranges'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the singular sibling canvas_rubric, so an agent must infer the list-vs-single split from the name alone.

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 an explicit redirect: 'For the feedback on your own work use canvas_submission', which is the most likely confusion point for a rubric lookup. It stops short of naming canvas_rubric as the single-rubric alternative or stating prerequisites for which courses are visible.

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