canvas_get_syllabus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the syllabus doesn't exist (e.g., returns null vs. throws error). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise at three words, front-loading the core action ('Get') and resource ('course syllabus') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It doesn't explain what the syllabus output looks like (e.g., HTML content, file object, structured data), potential side effects, or error handling. For a 'get' operation in an API context, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond the basic parameter.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'course_id' documented as 'ID of the course'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what format the ID should be in (numeric vs. string) or where to find it. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides adequate parameter documentation.

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 'Get course syllabus' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('course syllabus'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_get_course' or 'canvas_get_page' that might also return syllabus information, nor does it specify what format the syllabus is returned in (HTML, PDF, text).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling 'get' tools (e.g., 'canvas_get_course', 'canvas_get_page'), the description doesn't indicate if this is the preferred method for syllabus retrieval or if other tools might serve similar purposes. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing course access permissions.

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