canvas_list_courses

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

The annotation set already declares readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the note that 'all requests use Canvas GET endpoints' and 'cannot modify Canvas,' which is slightly more specific but largely redundant with the annotations. No additional behavioral details like return format/pagination are provided, but the annotations reduce the burden.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence about read-only access is somewhat generic and overlaps with annotations, but it is brief. The second sentence directly states the tool's purpose. Overall, it is concise and well-structured, though the first sentence could be trimmed.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It mentions listing active courses, terms, and current scores, but 'available current scores' is somewhat vague and could be interpreted as needing more detail about what fields are returned or how scores are formatted. No mention of pagination or scope limitations beyond 'active' courses, leaving a moderate gap in completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the listing of outputs (courses, terms, scores) adds context without describing parameters.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List active courses, terms, and available current scores.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like canvas_list_assignments or canvas_get_grades, which target different resources.

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 for when to use the tool: when a listing of active courses, terms, or current scores is needed. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the differentiation from sibling tools is implied through the resource list, and the read-only nature is stated. No explicit exclusions are given, but the usage intent is clear.

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