List linked files

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by listing the many sources it scans and by naming the fields it returns, though it does not warn about scanning cost or latency.

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 front-loaded with the core action and scanning scope, then gives the student distinction and output handoff. The enumeration of scanned sources is long but each item directly supports correct tool selection.

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 scanning tool with no output schema, the description helpfully names the return fields and explains the handoff to canvas_read_file. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only the max_pages parameter left to the schema.

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?

Only course_id is required, but the description never explains it beyond the phrase 'course's files'. It also does not mention max_pages, and with schema description coverage at 50%, the description leaves a meaningful parameter gap uncompensated.

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 and resource: it finds the course's linked files by scanning named Canvas locations. It explicitly distinguishes itself from canvas_list_files by noting that it works for students, so an agent can select it without opening sibling schemas.

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 names the alternative canvas_list_files and the condition that selects this tool: it works for students. It also routes the agent onward by saying to pass file_id to canvas_read_file, which makes the workflow explicit.

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