canvas_module_get

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 tool returns detailed module information, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits. For a 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a bulleted list of return details. It's efficiently structured with zero wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.

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 moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and return data well, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, errors) and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('course_id' and 'module_id'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 module.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('module'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'canvas_module_list' (which lists modules) and 'canvas_module_items' (which focuses on items only). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'canvas_module_progress' (which might overlap in some data), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 when detailed module info is needed, as opposed to listing modules or items alone, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'canvas_module_list' or 'canvas_module_progress'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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