List Outcome Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the sentence "Read-only" mostly restates structured data. The description does add a useful structural hint that the result is a hierarchy of groups and subgroups, but says nothing about whether empty groups appear, depth of nesting, or pagination.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the safety note and the disambiguation. No filler or repetition beyond the arguably redundant "Read-only" clause.

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?

A single-parameter read tool whose schema is fully documented and whose safety profile is carried by annotations; the description supplies the one thing not in structured data, namely how this differs from list_outcomes. No output schema exists, so return-shape detail is not required.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage, including how to obtain the Canvas course ID from list_courses. The description adds no additional meaning about scope, filtering, or defaults, 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 — how a course's learning outcomes are organized into groups and subgroups — and distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling list_outcomes in the same breath. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_outcomes "for the outcomes themselves," giving a clear alternative for the adjacent use case. It does not spell out exclusions (e.g. when neither tool applies) or note that a course_id must first be obtained via list_courses, though the schema covers that.

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