canvas_module_progress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what the tool returns (completed, in-progress, locked modules, and requirements remaining), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's a read-only operation, how data is formatted, or potential rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second bulleted list clearly outlines the return values. There's no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the main purpose stated first.

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 (progress tracking with multiple status categories) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It explains what information is returned but not the format, structure, or additional behavioral context. For a tool with no output schema, more detail about the return format would be helpful, though the bulleted list gives some indication of content.

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 (course_id is clearly documented as 'The Canvas course ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. It doesn't explain what format the course_id should be in, where to find it, or provide any examples - it relies entirely on the schema's documentation.

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 ('Get') and resource ('your progress through course modules'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like canvas_module_get or canvas_module_list by focusing on progress tracking rather than module metadata or listings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all possible alternatives, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like canvas_module_get, canvas_module_list, and canvas_module_items available, there's no indication of when progress tracking is needed versus retrieving module content or structure. The description assumes the user already knows they need progress information without explaining the context.

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