get_syllabus

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint: true, covering the primary behavioral trait. The description adds context about returning untruncated content but does not mention any additional behaviors such as authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Since it adds only minimal insight beyond the annotation, a moderate score 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?

The description is highly concise, consisting of just two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence and adds a clarifying contrast in the second. There is no redundant information or fluff, making it exceptionally well-structured.

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 simple nature of the tool and the rich schema descriptions, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns (full syllabus body) and clarifies how it differs from its sibling, providing sufficient context for an LLM to select and invoke it appropriately without needing an output 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?

The input schema provides comprehensive descriptions for all parameters (course_identifier, max_chars, output_format) with clear semantics and defaults. Since the schema coverage is 100%, the description need not repeat this information, but it also adds no extra parameter context, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states it retrieves the complete Canvas Syllabus tab content for a course, using the specific verb 'Get' and resource. It also distinguishes this from the sibling tool 'get_course_content_overview' by noting it returns full content rather than a preview, making its 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?

The description explicitly contrasts with 'get_course_content_overview', indicating when to use this tool (when full syllabus content is needed) versus the alternative (when a preview suffices). This provides clear usage guidance without needing further elaboration.

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