canvas_list_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reiterates read-only behavior with 'All requests use Canvas GET endpoints; this server cannot modify Canvas.' It adds the GET endpoint detail but provides no further behavioral context such as pagination, rate limits, or return format beyond what annotations cover.

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 short and free of fluff, but the tool-specific purpose is placed at the end after generic read-only context. While concise, the front-loading could be improved by leading with the actual action.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic action and scope. However, it omits details like whether search matches file names, pagination behavior, or what file attributes are returned. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should provide more 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining course_id as 'one course' and search as an 'optional search term.' It gives basic semantic meaning to both parameters, though it does not elaborate on how search matches files (e.g., name vs. content).

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 'List files in one course with an optional search term,' which identifies the verb (list), resource (files), and scope (one course with search). This distinguishes it from siblings like canvas_list_courses and canvas_read_file.

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 usage when you need to list files in a course, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The read-only note is generic, not specific to this tool's selection.

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