canvas_upcoming_events

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. It states what the tool returns but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or how far into the future it looks for 'upcoming' events. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool 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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, lists return items in bullet points, and ends with differentiation from alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, though the bullet points could be integrated more smoothly into prose. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what it returns and how it differs from similar tools. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication, time range, pagination) and doesn't fully address when to use it versus all relevant siblings. For a read operation with no structured fields, it's minimally viable 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed in the description. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics by listing what it returns (assignments, calendar events, quizzes, other scheduled items). This adds value beyond the empty input schema, earning a score above the baseline of 3.

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 upcoming calendar events' with specific examples of what it returns (assignments, calendar events, quizzes, other scheduled items). It distinguishes from sibling 'canvas_planner_items' by noting it shows a 'calendar-based view', though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tool. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about the verb+resource combination.

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 implied usage guidance by contrasting with 'planner' (likely referring to 'canvas_planner_items'), stating it shows a 'calendar-based view'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'canvas_todo_list' or 'canvas_missing_submissions', nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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