canvas_sync_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the running-state return shape and the final result contents, including summaries, per-course files, and errors. It omits polling interval or explicit read-only confirmation, but the status nature is evident.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and then describes the two output phases. The inline JSON example efficiently conveys the running-state shape without unnecessary prose.

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 status tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains both in-progress and completed returns adequately. It could add a note about polling until completion, but nothing essential for invoking it is missing.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not need to add parameter details.

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 resource—progress/result of a sync—and ties it to the sibling canvas_sync without a course. It clearly distinguishes this status tool from the sync starter and from general status tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with canvas_status.

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 phrase 'started by canvas_sync without a course' gives clear context for when to use it: after starting a global sync. It does not spell out exclusions or name alternatives, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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