canvas_list_courses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add two meaningful behavioral facts: the result is scoped to the authenticated user, and only active courses are returned, implying completed or archived ones are filtered out. However, it is silent on ordering, pagination, and the precise meaning of 'active', leaving gaps for a tool that must stand on its description alone.

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 sentence with zero wasted words. The verb is front-loaded, and each qualifier ('authenticated user's', 'active') earns its place by adding scoping or filtering information rather than padding.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts an agent needs: the action, the owner of the data, and the active-only filter. Minor omissions — defining 'active' and describing ordering or pagination — are low-stakes given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline of 4; there is nothing for the description to explain about argument semantics.

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 ('List') and a precise resource ('the authenticated user's active Canvas courses'). The resource noun 'courses' clearly differentiates it from the siblings canvas_get_upcoming and canvas_list_assignments, which target different Canvas entities, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the 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?

The intended use is implied by the resource naming — use this when the agent needs the user's roster of courses — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer canvas_list_assignments or canvas_get_upcoming instead. The routing decision is left entirely to inference from the sibling names.

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