list_rubrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return fields (ID, title, point total, criteria count) and implies read-only behavior through 'List.' It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a simple listing tool this is adequate.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that specifies action, scope, and return fields, with no wasted words 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?

For a single-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and return fields. It could add pagination or note that it returns the complete set, but these are not essential for understanding the tool's basic functionality.

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 only parameter, course_id, is already fully described in the schema as 'Canvas course ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema's own meaning.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('all rubrics') and scope ('in a course'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_rubric (which fetches a single rubric) and create/delete/update_rubric (mutations).

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 clearly indicates the use case by saying 'List all rubrics in a course,' but it does not explicitly contrast with get_rubric or state when not to use it. No alternatives are named, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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