canvas_get_syllabus

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating that all requests use Canvas GET endpoints and that output is 'cleaned text', providing useful behavioral context beyond the 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 concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose. No redundant words or unnecessary details.

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 read-only tool with a single parameter and strong annotations, the description is complete. It conveys the read-only nature, the output format (cleaned text), and the resource being accessed. No output schema exists, but the description provides enough about the return value.

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 one required parameter, course_id, with no description. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter, but the parameter name and tool purpose make its meaning obvious. The description does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage, but the gap is minimal.

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 states the tool reads one course syllabus as cleaned text, specifying the exact resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like canvas_list_courses and canvas_get_assignment by focusing specifically on syllabi.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to read a single course syllabus. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear given the tool name and sibling set.

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