canvas_browse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds real behavioral context by noting that file items carry a file_id intended for canvas_download (interop beyond the schema), but it omits whether authentication is required, whether the call is read-only, and any pagination or size limits for large courses.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the return contents are front-loaded and the cross-tool hint is appended last. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly enumerates the returned structure (modules containing files, pages, links, assignments with due dates). The only real gap for correct invocation is the unstated authentication prerequisite implied by the sibling canvas_login.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does fully: the single `course` parameter is documented as accepting a course id, a course code, or part of the name. That resolves all ambiguity about valid input forms for the only parameter.

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 ('Show') and resource ('a course's modules') and enumerates exactly what each module contains (files, pages, links, assignments with due dates). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like canvas_courses or canvas_deadlines without needing to name them.

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 — browse within a single course — and it points forward to canvas_download for file_id items, which is a useful handoff. However, it never states when to prefer this over canvas_courses or canvas_deadlines, nor any prerequisites such as needing canvas_login first.

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