List Appointment Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the read-only nature and world-wide listing. The description adds the scope semantics (reservable vs manageable), which explains what kinds of groups are returned. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like return format, pagination, or sorting. Given annotations cover the essential safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the scope guidance in the second is directly actionable. Every word earns its place.

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 listing tool with three optional parameters, the description covers purpose and the two scopes. Schema covers all parameters, and annotations cover safety. Nothing necessary for a correct call seems missing. It could mention pagination or return structure, but given openWorldHint and no output schema, this is not critical.

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 all three parameters are already described. The tool description adds slight nuance to the scope parameter (explaining 'reservable' as 'students can reserve' and 'manageable' as 'current user manages'), but does not add anything for include or context_codes beyond the schema. This is at baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'appointment groups', and adds the context 'Canvas Scheduler sign-up slots' to clarify what these groups are. It also mentions the two scope options, which distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_appointment_group (single group) or create/update/delete. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 guidance on when to use each scope: 'Use scope=reservable to find groups students can reserve, or scope=manageable for groups the current user manages.' This helps with scope selection but does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_appointment_group for retrieving a single group. It gives context but no exclusions, so it's clear but could be stronger.

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