List Content Migrations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the ordering detail ('most recent first'), which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors such as pagination, filtering, or error conditions. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds modest value but leaves some behavioral context unspecified.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, includes the scoping 'for a course', and adds the ordering detail. There is zero filler or redundant wording. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 list tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but not rich. It specifies the scope and ordering but does not mention the return format, pagination, or any caveats. Given the openWorldHint, more context about the response structure could be helpful, but the basic information is present for correct invocation.

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 schema covers course_id at 100% with the description 'The Canvas course ID', and the tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter. Since schema coverage is high, the description does not need to compensate, but it also does not enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'content migrations for a course', with the scope and ordering ('most recent first'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_content_exports (which lists exports, not migrations) and get_content_migration (which retrieves a single migration). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies its use for listing all migrations but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. It does not mention that get_content_migration is for a single migration or that list_content_exports is for exports. The usage context is only implied by the verb and resource, with no stated when-not or alternative routing.

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