canvas_list_course_files

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds the key behavioral constraint that only metadata is returned and directs the agent to the url field for downloading, giving context beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that adds crucial differentiation. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 description covers the core purpose and points to an alternative, but with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, it lacks explanation of filter semantics and return structure. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for an agent trying to use the tool effectively.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It does not explain courseId, searchTerm, or contentTypes at all; the only param mention is the `url` field in the context of the sibling download tool, not this tool's parameters. The property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the agent gets no enrichment from the description.

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 tool lists a course's files, specifies 'metadata only' to distinguish from file downloads, and directly names the sibling canvas_download_file for content retrieval. This makes the purpose specific and distinct from related 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 indicates when to use this tool (to list metadata) and when to use an alternative ('use canvas_download_file with the `url` field'), providing clear usage guidance and a named alternative.

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