canvas_get_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that all requests use Canvas GET endpoints and that the server cannot modify Canvas, reinforcing read-only behavior without introducing new behavioral details. There are no contradictions with annotations.

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 and does not waste words. The first sentence about read-only access is somewhat redundant with the annotations but still provides useful server-level context. Overall, it is concise and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and read-only nature, but it does not explain the course_id parameter or mention what the response contains. This leaves some gaps, but the tool is simple enough that a 3 is appropriate.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it only clarifies page_url as a 'CANVAS page URL slug' and leaves course_id unexplained. This is insufficient for a 2-parameter tool, and the description adds no details about integer IDs or required format beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action: 'Read one course page by its Canvas page URL slug.' This clearly identifies the resource (course page) and the identifier (URL slug), making the tool's purpose distinct from sibling tools like canvas_list_courses. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it misses the highest score.

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 when to use the tool: when a single course page is needed by its URL slug. It provides context that the server is read-only, but does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools (e.g., canvas_get_syllabus). The guidance is clear but not explicit enough for a 4.

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