canvas_list_active_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a non-obvious side effect — that notes get written to the vault — which is the single most important behavioral fact here and is not implied by the name. However, it says nothing about whether that write is idempotent, overwrites existing notes, requires authentication, or how dry_run modifies the side effect, leaving real gaps for a mutating operation.

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?

A single tightly written sentence with the scope and the side effect front-loaded and no filler. It is under-specified rather than verbose, so conciseness itself is not the problem.

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 four-parameter tool with a hidden write side effect, no annotations, and no output schema, this is too thin. An agent cannot tell what dry_run or all_terms do, what gets written to the vault, or what the call returns, which risks unintended writes on first 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only term is documented, with its AAAA-1/AAAA-2 format). The description explains the default term behavior but adds no meaning for dry_run, all_terms, or course_id — three of four parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description, and dry_run in particular is critical given the vault-write side effect.

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 uses a specific verb ("Lista") plus a precise resource filter: published tasks that are neither submitted nor blocked, scoped to the most recent semester. That is far more informative than the bare name. It loses a point because it also mentions writing notes to the vault, which muddies whether this is a read tool or a read-plus-write tool, and it does not name any sibling to contrast with.

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?

It implies a default scope (most recent semester) but gives no guidance on when to override it, when to use all_terms, or when course_id narrowing is appropriate. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use statement and no reference to the many sibling canvas_* tools that could overlap.

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