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 only the 'in a course' scope and the promise of 'all' modules; it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or any filtering behavior, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 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 low-complexity tool with one documented parameter and read-only annotations, the description plus schema is sufficient to invoke it. The only minor gap is that no information is given about the return format or pagination, but listing semantics make those easy to infer.

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%: course_id is documented as 'The Canvas course ID'. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, which is fine because the schema carries the meaning. 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 ('list'), a resource ('modules'), and a clear scope ('in a course'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_module (single module), list_module_items (items within a module), and create_module (write operation).

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 usage context is implied: an agent would select this when the user asks for all modules for a course. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusions, relying on sibling names to make the distinction.

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