Planner / to-do

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that results include submission status and that the window defaults to the next 14 days. It does not discuss pagination, item ordering, or volume across many courses, which matters for an open-world aggregate query.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded before the default-window detail. The first sentence is a compressed noun phrase rather than a complete clause, which costs a touch of readability, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the item types returned and notes that submission status is included, which is what an agent needs to decide whether this answers a 'what's due' question. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and behavior when course_id is omitted, but the core is covered.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented, including the ISO date defaults and the single-course filter. The description's mention of the default window essentially duplicates the schema's default values, adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries this much of the burden.

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 specific aggregate resource: dated items across courses — assignments, quizzes, discussions, calendar events — plus submission status. That distinguishes it from the narrower siblings like canvas_list_assignments and canvas_list_calendar_events, though it never names those siblings explicitly. The phrasing 'Everything with a date in a window across courses' is slightly telegraphic but unambiguous.

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 default window ('today through 14 days ahead') gives useful context for when the tool applies out of the box. However, it never says when to prefer this aggregated planner view over canvas_list_assignments or canvas_list_calendar_events, which is the main routing decision an agent faces among these siblings.

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