List Planner Items

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — that returned items carry plannable IDs intended for mark_planner_item_done — but says nothing about page size behavior beyond the limit param or the default date window (left to the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical 'the Planner' and the item-type enumeration both earn their words by disambiguating the term and the payload. It is dense but readable, with only a mild run-on quality.

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?

For a 5-param, zero-required read tool with a fully documented schema and annotations, the description covers what the tool returns and how to follow up. The missing piece is routing guidance among the several overlapping to-do/planner listing tools, which matters given how many siblings exist.

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 every parameter is already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds marginal meaning by saying coverage spans 'across every course' (implying course_id is a narrowing filter) and reinforcing the date-range framing for start_date/end_date.

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 ('Your Canvas To Do list (the Planner) for a date range') and enumerates the item types returned, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It lacks explicit differentiation from close siblings such as list_todo, list_todo_for_course and list_planner_notes, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'To Do list for a date range' framing and the explicit follow-up pointer to mark_planner_item_done, giving a clear use-then-act chain. However, it never says when to choose this over list_todo, list_todo_for_course or list_planner_notes, nor any preconditions, so the agent must infer the split from names alone.

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