get_course_grades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Show', but says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, empty-grade behavior, or what happens when the course doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

One clear sentence plus a compact docstring-style args block. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no wasted prose. Loses a point only because the args section is slightly redundant with the input-schema structure presented nearby.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered. But with no annotations, an undocumented account parameter, and no behavioral detail (pagination/errors/empty results), the definition leaves an agent guessing on how to call it robustly. For a two-param read tool this is only partially adequate.

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 compensate. It does document course_id ('The numeric Canvas course ID (get it from get_courses)'), adding type and provenance beyond the schema. However, the account parameter (with a 'uchile' default) is never mentioned, leaving the agent to guess its meaning — a real gap given zero schema-level coverage.

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 verb and resource — 'Show the current user's grades for all assignments in a course' — and adds the 'current user's' scope qualifier. It's clear and none of the sibling tools (get_courses, get_assignments, etc.) deal with grades, so it's easily distinguished. Minor deduction because it partially echoes the tool name without adding much beyond the scope qualifier.

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 only guidance is 'get it from get_courses' for acquiring course_id, which is a weak step hint rather than real when-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named, no exclusions given, and no context about when this tool is preferred over the many sibling course tools.

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