List Modules

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 nothing further—no pagination behavior, no scope limits, no return shape—so it contributes essentially no behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one fully documented required parameter and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. There is no output schema, but the description also does not characterize the returned list, leaving a small gap for an agent expecting detail on module contents.

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 single course_id parameter is documented in the schema as 'The Canvas course ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (modules) scoped to a course, which is enough to distinguish it from mutation siblings like create_module or update_module. However, it does not differentiate from list_module_items, which lists items within a module, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing between the two.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_module or list_module_items, and no prerequisites or context are stated. It is purely a restatement of what the tool returns.

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