Get Syllabus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds valuable context by mentioning the return of course name and syllabus HTML, and explains the underlying reason for the tool's existence (Canvas stores syllabus on the course, not wiki page). Slight shortfall: no mention of error cases or authorization, but the read-only, idempotent nature is covered by annotations.

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 fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose and return value, the second gives the alternative rationale. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, why it should be used over a sibling, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile. No significant gaps remain.

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 schema covers the only parameter 'course_id' with a description 'Course id' (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides. However, since there is only one parameter and it is fully documented, this is adequate.

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 clearly states the tool gets a course's syllabus directly from Canvas, specifying the resource and what it returns (course name and syllabus HTML). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_page by positioning this as the correct tool for syllabus retrieval, so the purpose is unambiguous and well differentiated.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this instead of get_page because Canvas stores the syllabus on the course, not as a wiki page.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool and why, nailing the when-to-use and alternatives aspect.

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