Get Syllabus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return value is an HTML body, which is useful because no output schema exists, but it does not describe edge cases like a missing syllabus or whether the HTML is sanitized. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It states the action, the resource, and the return format efficiently.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description is nearly complete: the parameter is fully documented, annotations cover the read-only behavior, and the description clarifies the HTML body return value despite the absence of an output schema. It could mention the missing-syllabus edge case, but that is a minor gap.

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%, and the course_id parameter is already described as 'The Canvas course ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('syllabus HTML body'), making it immediately clear what the tool does. It is distinct from siblings like get_course because it targets the syllabus's HTML body specifically. No ambiguity remains about the tool's purpose.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent would use this when it needs the syllabus HTML body for a course. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives. Since it is the only syllabus-focused tool among siblings, the inference is easy but not explicit.

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