List Planner Notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact—these notes are private to the caller—but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or what a result set looks like.

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?

There is no wasted wording, and the privacy fact is front-loaded in two short sentences. However, brevity here comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient density—the size is small because content is missing, not because it is tight.

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 five-parameter list tool with date-range and course filters, no output schema, and multiple similar siblings needs more than a single privacy statement. The description gives no sense of what is returned, how results are ordered, or when to reach for this over the adjacent planner and to-do tools.

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%, and each of the five parameters is documented in the schema (page, limit, start_date, end_date, course_id). The description adds no meaning beyond that, 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?

The description identifies the resource as personal planner notes ('your own Canvas to-do notes'), but it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it never distinguishes this from close siblings such as list_planner_items or list_todo. An agent must infer from the name alone that this retrieves rather than creates notes.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With list_planner_items, list_todo, and list_todo_for_course in the sibling set, the agent is left to guess which retrieval surface returns notes versus items versus to-dos.

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