canvas_list_planner_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network scope are covered. The description adds useful surface area by revealing that the result is a merged feed of four item types, but says nothing about pagination, how startDate/endDate bound the result, or authentication for observee access.

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; the parenthetical enumeration of item types is dense but carries real information. It is efficient, though it stops short of any routing or scoping guidance.

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 five-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description leaves an agent unable to determine date-range behavior, pagination, or the meaning of the filter enum. It covers the item taxonomy but not the mechanics needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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% across five parameters, and the description only loosely gestures at observeeId ('a linked observee'). It never explains the filter enum value 'new_activity', the startDate/endDate format or semantics, or what contextCodes restricts. With this coverage gap, the description must compensate and does not.

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 names a specific verb (List) and resource (planner items) and enumerates exactly what the collection contains: assignments, announcements, planner notes, calendar events. That distinguishes it from siblings like canvas_list_assignments or canvas_list_calendar_events, which cover only one type each, though it never explicitly says it aggregates those siblings.

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 clause 'for the user or a linked observee' hints at the observeeId use case, but there is no statement of when to call this instead of canvas_list_assignments, canvas_list_announcements, or canvas_list_calendar_events. No exclusions, prerequisites, or date-window context are given.

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