canvas_bookmark_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return values (bookmark names, target URLs, position/order), which adds useful context about output structure. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by brief context and a clear bulleted list of return values. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks details on behavioral traits like permissions or errors. For a read-only list tool, this is minimally viable but could benefit from more context to compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on output details. This aligns with the baseline expectation for tools without parameters, earning a high score for not adding unnecessary information.

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's purpose: 'List all your Canvas bookmarks.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('Canvas bookmarks'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like canvas_bookmark_create or canvas_bookmark_delete, though the 'List' action implies read-only retrieval versus creation/deletion.

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 implies usage by stating 'Bookmarks provide quick access to frequently used pages,' suggesting this tool is for retrieving bookmark data. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of canvas_bookmark_create for adding bookmarks or canvas_bookmark_delete for removal), leaving the context somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.

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