canvas_list_planner_items

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, date range handling, or behavior when no observeeId is provided. The 'user or a linked observee' scope is also visible in the observeeId parameter. No meaningful behavioral information beyond the annotation is disclosed.

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 concise sentence with the action verb 'List' front-loaded and the resource immediately clarified in parentheses. Every word contributes meaning, with no wasted text or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Despite being a read-only list tool, it has multiple optional filters (date range, filter enum, contextCodes) that could affect results, but no explanation of their semantics or defaults. There is no output schema, so the description should at least hint at return format or behavior, but it does not. The tool aggregates multiple item types, increasing the need for clarity on scope and filtering, which is missing.

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 5 parameters with no descriptions (0% schema coverage), and the description provides no parameter explanations. The only hint is 'for the user or a linked observee' which loosely relates to observeeId, but startDate, endDate, filter, and contextCodes are completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource as 'planner items' and parenthetically lists the constituent types (assignments, announcements, planner notes, calendar events), distinguishing it from sibling tools that target a single type. The scope 'for the user or a linked observee' is also stated. It could be more explicit about how it differs from the individual list tools, but the verb+resource+scope is specific enough for a 4.

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 this tool should be used when a combined view of multiple item types is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over calling list_assignments, list_announcements, or list_calendar_events separately. There are no exclusions or alternative tool names given. The usage context is only implied by the parenthetical, not stated as guidance.

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