Canvas MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what information is shown (cached items count, cache keys) but doesn't describe important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized with three brief sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by what information is shown, and ending with usage context. There's minimal waste, though the bullet-like 'Shows:' format could be slightly more polished.

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 moderate complexity (diagnostic cache tool with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and what information it returns, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects, error conditions, or output format details that would be helpful for a debugging tool.

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 100% with the single parameter 'clear' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 with 'Get cache status and statistics' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cache status and statistics'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on cache operations rather than Canvas LMS entities like assignments or files. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific cache-related alternatives since none exist among siblings.

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 implied usage guidance with 'Useful for debugging,' suggesting this tool is for diagnostic purposes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. No sibling tools appear to overlap with cache functionality, so differentiation isn't critical.

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