canvas_course_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'Returns' specific data, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of return values. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. It could be slightly improved by front-loading more critical details (e.g., authentication), but it's efficiently sized for its purpose.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and return values, but lacks context on authentication, errors, or how it differs from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral details would enhance completeness for a read operation.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('course_id' and 'include_syllabus'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'syllabus (if requested)', which aligns with the boolean parameter. However, it does not provide additional context like parameter constraints or examples, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific course.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('course'), and lists key return fields (name, code, term, dates, syllabus, student count). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_course_list' (which likely lists multiple courses vs. getting details for one).

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 specifying it's for 'a specific course' and lists return details, suggesting it's for retrieving comprehensive course data. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., 'canvas_course_list' for summaries or other tools for specific course components). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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