canvas_list_planner_items

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the read-only safety profile, and the description is fully consistent with it (a 'List' operation). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotation: it aggregates four item types and supports viewing a linked observee's planner. It does not disclose date-range defaults, pagination, or the new_activity filter's semantics, but the annotation lowers the bar and the added context is meaningful.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, uses a parenthetical to enumerate item types, and wastes no words. Every phrase 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?

With 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin for correct invocation. It omits date format expectations, the semantics of the filter enum, context-code formatting conventions, and what the response contains — all critical for a Canvas API tool.

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 carries full responsibility for explaining the five parameters, yet it names none of them. An agent is left guessing at the meaning and format of startDate/endDate, the filter='new_activity' enum value, the observeeId linkage requirement, and how to format Canvas contextCodes.

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 pairs a specific verb ('List') with a concrete resource ('planner items') and explicitly enumerates the aggregated item types (assignments, announcements, planner notes, calendar events). The 'planner' framing plus the observee scope clearly differentiates it from siblings like canvas_list_assignments, canvas_list_announcements, and canvas_list_calendar_events.

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 implies usage — an agent can infer this is the right tool when it needs a cross-type aggregated planner view, possibly for an observee. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over the sibling list tools, names no alternatives, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., whether an observee must first be linked).

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