agenda-wrapup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'GLOBAL' and that it generates Canvas pages, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether pages are created or updated, whether existing pages are overwritten), required authentication, configuration failure behavior, or idempotency. This is a significant gap for a tool that produces real Canvas artifacts.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the main action and target resources appear in the first sentence, then supporting details (config-driven, triggers) follow. Every sentence adds value, and the trigger list is concise and actionable without being redundant.

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?

The description gives a good overview but omits operational details: it does not explain how the tool identifies the module, how the week is determined, or what happens if configuration is missing. The presence of an output schema helps, but for a tool with no explicit parameters and non-trivial behavior, more context is needed for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds context by mentioning 'course_slug -> course_config' and the concept of being config-driven, which hints at how inputs might be resolved even though there is no explicit parameter list.

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 begins with a specific verb 'generate' and names the exact resources: 'weekly Agenda (week start) and Wrap-up (week end) Canvas pages for a module'. It also clarifies data source ('from the same module data'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_page or module-overview-page.

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?

The description provides clear trigger phrases ('week N agenda', 'wrap-up for week N', 'update the agenda', 'make the week 3 agenda/wrapup') indicating when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to recognize appropriate invocations.

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