canvas_list_modules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds specific context: 'All requests use Canvas GET endpoints; this server cannot modify Canvas.' This reinforces the safety profile and gives additional behavioral detail without contradicting 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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded context. Every sentence adds value, avoiding fluff while covering purpose and read-only nature.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It states exactly what is listed (modules and module items) and the read-only constraint, making it sufficient for correct invocation.

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 not explicitly described, but the phrase 'one course's modules' implies its meaning. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description only partially compensates, though the parameter is self-explanatory from its name.

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 'List one course's modules and module items', using a specific verb and resource scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like canvas_list_courses and canvas_list_assignments.

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 use for read-only listing of modules but does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it. The read-only context is helpful, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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