canvas_planner_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (due dates, course context, submission/completion status) which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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: it starts with the core purpose, lists return values clearly, then provides usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 does a good job covering purpose, returns, and usage. It explains what the tool returns (due dates, course context, etc.) which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like authentication or error handling.

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 already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 planner items - your upcoming assignments, quizzes, discussions, and events.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('planner items') with concrete examples. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_todo_list' or 'canvas_upcoming_events', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 explicit usage guidance with a dedicated section: 'This is the best tool for: - Seeing what's due soon - Planning your week - Finding overdue items.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools as alternatives.

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