canvas_module_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 the tool's behavior by listing what modules contain and the inclusion of completion status, which adds context beyond basic listing. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet points and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 provides good context for a read operation, including resource details and usage scenarios. However, it lacks information on output format (e.g., JSON structure) and potential limitations, which would enhance completeness for an agent.

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 fully documents the two parameters (course_id, include_items). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors, but the high coverage justifies the baseline score.

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 with a specific verb ('List all modules'), resource ('in a course'), and scope ('with their items and completion status'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like canvas_module_get (single module) and canvas_module_items (items only) by emphasizing comprehensive listing with items and status.

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 clear usage contexts ('See course structure and organization', 'Track module completion progress', 'Find specific content within modules'), which help determine when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., canvas_module_get for a single module), missing full differentiation.

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