read_course_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses OCR fallback for scanned PDFs and enumerates supported formats, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any limitations (e.g., file size limits, timeout, or error behavior). The read-only nature is implied but not stated, and no further side effects or constraints are disclosed.

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 brief, with the core purpose and supported formats in the first two sentences, followed by a compact Args list. The structure is clean and front-loaded. It could be slightly more organized (e.g., using bullet points for args), but it remains clear and avoids redundancy.

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 complexity (multi-format support with OCR fallback) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main function and key formats. However, the complete omission of the account parameter is a significant gap, as is the lack of any mention of error handling or unsupported formats. The output schema may cover return values, but the description does not explain the context of file access (e.g., permissions or ownership), which could be relevant.

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, but it barely does. It repeats that course_id and file_id are numeric, which the schema already states via integer type, and it omits the account parameter entirely. The account parameter has a default, but its purpose or when to override it is not explained. The description fails to clarify the role of account, leaving a parameter undocumented in any meaningful way.

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?

Description clearly states the tool downloads and reads text content from a Canvas file, with a specific resource (file from course) and verb. It distinguishes from siblings like get_course_files (which lists files) by focusing on reading content. The supported formats add specificity, making the purpose 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?

Explicitly directs users to use get_course_files to find file IDs, providing a clear prerequisite. It also lists which file formats are supported, implying when the tool is applicable. While it doesn't state when not to use it, there is no obvious alternative for reading file content, and the pointer to get_course_files is sufficient guidance.

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