canvas_file_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 describes what the tool returns (file metadata) and some use cases, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds value by specifying the return format, but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then lists return values in bullet points, and finishes with specific use cases. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The bullet points make it scannable and front-loaded.

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 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like pagination, error handling, or authentication needs. For a list operation with no annotations, more behavioral transparency would be helpful.

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 fully documents both parameters (course_id and sort_by with enum values). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 files in a course' specifies the verb (list) and resource (files in a course). It distinguishes from some siblings like canvas_file_download (downloads) and canvas_file_search (searches), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from canvas_file_get (gets single file) or canvas_folder_list (lists folders). The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation could be more explicit.

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 'Use this to:' section provides clear context for when to use the tool: browsing course materials, finding documents to download, and getting file IDs for other operations. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (like canvas_file_search for filtered searches), but the guidance is practical and helpful for an agent.

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