canvas_list_modules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reiterates 'Read-only,' adding little beyond that. It does add the scoping detail 'for one Canvas course,' which implies course_id targets a single course. However, it does not disclose behaviors like pagination, ordering, or what exactly is returned for modules/items. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences immediately state the action and scope, and then note read-only behavior. No filler or redundancy. The information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only annotation, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose, scope, and safety. It tells the agent it will get modules and module items for a single course. It lacks return format or pagination details, but for this level of complexity, the description is largely complete.

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 schema has one required parameter (course_id) with 0% description coverage. The description adds some meaning by stating 'for one Canvas course,' clarifying that course_id identifies the course and that the tool is scoped to a single course. It also indicates the output will include modules and module items. Yet it does not elaborate on parameter format or constraints beyond what the parameter name and schema already imply.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('modules and module items') and scope ('one Canvas course'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like canvas_create_module and canvas_create_module_item, as well as from the more general canvas_read_api.

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 (i.e., when you need to list modules/items for a course), and the 'Read-only' note hints it is safe for inspection. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or contrast with sibling tools. The guidance is largely implicit.

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