canvas_group_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns group names, descriptions, member counts, and associated courses, which adds useful context about the output. However, it doesn't mention behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'List' but not explicit). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and front-loaded, starting with the core functionality. The bullet points for returns and group uses are structured efficiently, though the 'Groups are used for' section might be slightly extraneous but adds context.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or pagination, which could be important for a list operation in a real-world API.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, and it compensates by explaining the return values, making it more helpful than baseline.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all groups you are a member of'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_group_members', which might list members of a specific group rather than groups the user belongs to.

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 stating 'List all groups you are a member of,' which suggests it's for retrieving personal group memberships. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'canvas_group_members' or other group-related tools, and doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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