get_course_schedule_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are chronological and limited to dated items, which is useful. However, it omits details about return format, pagination, or whether all statuses are included, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and purpose, and contains no redundant or filler language. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter) and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and when to use it. It could be more explicit about the returned fields, but the overview nature is implied well enough for selection and invocation.

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 already defines course_id as 'Canvas course ID' with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'get' and clearly identifies the resource as a chronological overview of assignments, discussions, and quizzes in a course. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_calendar_events or list_assignments, which focus on single entity types.

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 states it is 'useful for understanding the current schedule before making changes,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficiently clear.

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