List Todo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' sentence is largely redundant. The description does add real value by describing what is included (submission-pending assignments, grading items for instructors), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether results span all courses versus the dashboard view. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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, zero waste, with the core definition front-loaded and the disambiguation clauses trailing. Every clause earns its place by either defining content scope or routing to a sibling.

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 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining the return contents — which it does in prose. Minor gap: it doesn't state result ordering or whether the sibling get_todo_count gives a lighter-weight count, both of which an agent choosing between tools would find useful.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. There is no argument syntax the description could add beyond confirming that no scoping is applied implicitly.

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 Canvas's own to-do items') and immediately enumerates the two content categories: unsubmitted assignments and items awaiting grading. It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from list_todo_for_course and list_upcoming_assignments without opening any schema.

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 explicit routing rules: use list_upcoming_assignments for a date-bounded view, and list_todo_for_course for a single course. Both alternatives are named with the condition that selects them, leaving nothing to inference.

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