canvas_folder_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return format (folder hierarchy with names/paths, file/subfolder counts), which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions—critical gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, return details, and usage hint. Minor improvement possible by merging sentences, but it's efficient with zero waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by detailing return values. However, for a tool with 1 parameter and no behavioral annotations, it should more fully cover operational aspects (e.g., read-only status, error handling). It's adequate but has clear gaps in context.

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% (course_id parameter is fully described in schema). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in 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: 'List all folders in a course' (verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings like canvas_file_list by specifying folders only, not general files. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other folder-related tools (none in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 for navigating file structure ('Use this to navigate the file structure'), which provides some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like canvas_file_list or canvas_module_list for similar purposes, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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