List Gradebook History Days

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the structural trait that results are grouped by grader and assignment, which is useful behavioral information. No other side effects, pagination, or limitations are mentioned, but given the read-only hint and the simplicity of the tool, a 3 is appropriate.

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 entire description is one clear, front-loaded sentence. It states the action, the resource, and the grouping without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple: one parameter, read-only, and returns a list of dates with grouping. The description conveys the essential output shape (dates grouped by grader and assignment). With no output schema and a straightforward use case, nothing critical is missing. Pagination or limits are not mentioned but are unlikely to be significant for a date list.

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 has only one parameter, course_id, and it is fully described as 'The Canvas course ID' (100% schema coverage). The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies. No extra context about required permissions or format is provided, but the schema already handles it.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('dates in a course gradebook history'), and adds the two key qualifiers: 'that contain grading activity' and 'grouped by grader and assignment.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gradebook_history_day or list_gradebook_history_submissions without needing their schemas.

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 purpose is so clearly scoped that an agent can infer when to use it: whenever a list of history dates with grading activity is needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the sibling names (e.g., get_gradebook_history_day, list_gradebook_history_submissions) make the distinction obvious. The lack of explicit exclusions is a minor gap.

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