canvas_course_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the default behavior ('Returns active courses by default') and implies it's a read operation, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or response format. It adds some context but lacks details needed for full transparency in an unannotated tool.

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 efficiently structured with a clear main statement followed by a purposeful bulleted list. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 read-only list tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about purpose and usage. However, without annotations or output schema, it could better explain response format or behavioral constraints. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps in transparency.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain enrollment_state values or include_favorites implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('List all courses for the current user') and resource ('courses'), distinguishing it from siblings like canvas_course_get (single course) or canvas_dashboard (broader overview). It specifies scope ('for the current user') and default behavior ('Returns active courses by default'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage scenarios in a bulleted list: 'Get an overview of enrolled courses', 'Find course IDs for other operations', and 'Check enrollment status'. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like canvas_dashboard or canvas_course_get, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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