canvas_download

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait: the write destination (<download folder>/<course>/, overridable via subdir). But it says nothing about authentication (canvas_login is a sibling), overwrite/collision behavior, or failure modes for an invalid file_id.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource, then qualifies scope and destination. Every clause earns its place, with no restatement of the tool name or filler.

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 annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description leaves important gaps: whether a local path is returned, whether an existing file is overwritten, and whether login is a prerequisite. For a tool whose whole purpose is producing a local artifact, the post-download state is unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: file_id's source (canvas_browse) and subdir's role as a path override are explained, and course appears as a path segment. However, it never clarifies whether 'course' is an ID or a name, leaving the highest-ambiguity parameter unresolved.

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+resource ('Download one Canvas file') and scopes it to a single file rather than a batch, which cleanly separates it from the list-oriented canvas_browse and the bulk canvas_sync. It also identifies the provenance of the required file_id, so an agent can place it in the workflow 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 parenthetical that file_id comes 'from canvas_browse' implies the browse-then-download workflow, which is genuinely useful routing guidance. However, it never states when not to use this tool, nor does it distinguish itself from canvas_sync (bulk download) beyond the word 'one'. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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