canvas_discover

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld. The description adds genuinely new context beyond those: only 'reviewed' operations are surfaced, and permissions/OAuth scopes still apply to the discovered operations. That auth caveat is valuable behavioral information the agent wouldn't otherwise know. Return shape is covered by the output schema, so no penalty there.

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?

Three short lines with no wasted words, and the core purpose leads. The opening sentence is a bit dense/abstract but the following lines quickly ground it with examples and workflow. Efficient overall.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter discovery tool with an output schema, the description supplies purpose, example queries, and the downstream handoff to canvas_read. The only meaningful omission is how search matching behaves, which is minor given the schema and output schema already present.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load for the single 'search' parameter. It does so with a list of example queries (submission, rubric, discussion, file, quiz, calendar), giving the agent a real sense of expected values. It doesn't specify matching semantics (substring vs. keyword), which keeps it at 4.

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 states a concrete verb+resource: it finds reviewed read operations along with their required path parameters and accepted query keys, and clarifies that IDs feed into canvas_read. It distinguishes itself from the sibling execution tools (canvas_read, canvas_courses) by being explicitly a discovery/index tool. It's slightly abstract about what 'reviewed read operations' means in practice, keeping it from a 5.

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 gives concrete search-term examples (submission, rubric, discussion, file, quiz, calendar) and states the downstream workflow: 'IDs are passed to canvas_read.' That is clear usage context. It stops short of explicitly saying when NOT to use it (e.g., 'don't call this if you already know the operation'), so it isn't a 5.

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