canvas_list_course_files

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this operation is read-only. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that only metadata is returned and that downloading requires a separate call, which aligns with the annotation. It does not disclose pagination, authentication, or response shape, but those are not critical given the annotation coverage.

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 sentence with no wasted words. The core function is front-loaded, and the important distinction from file download is placed parenthetically, making it both concise and easy to parse.

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 operation, the description covers the core action and the relation to downloading files. However, with no output schema and no parameter documentation, an agent may not know how to use `searchTerm` or `contentTypes` or what fields to expect in the returned metadata, leaving moderate gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It only implicitly maps 'course's files' to the required `courseId` parameter. The optional parameters `searchTerm` and `contentTypes` are entirely unexplained, leaving their meaning and format to inference.

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 and resource: 'List a course's files', which immediately identifies the action and scope. The parenthetical 'metadata only' and the pointer to canvas_download_file clearly differentiate this from downloading actual file content, making its purpose unambiguous among the sibling tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use canvas_download_file with the `url` field when file content is needed, which is a clear conditional alternative. It does not, however, describe when to use this list tool versus other list-oriented siblings, though the context is clear enough for most selection scenarios.

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