List My Groups

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's added value is the disclosure of the returned fields (name, ID, course and course ID, group category ID, member count) — genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It omits pagination or list-size behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in one sentence, then organizes return fields and follow-up routing. The embedded example calls are somewhat verbose for a description, but they carry real actionable value rather than filler.

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 compensates by enumerating returned fields, and it covers purpose, usage, and downstream routing for a simple read-only list tool. The only gap is no mention of how large result sets or pagination are handled.

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 the single course_identifier parameter including its default ('groups in every course') is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with explicit scope: 'List the Canvas groups you belong to (project teams, study groups).' The possessive scope distinguishes it from the sibling list_groups, which enumerates groups rather than the user's memberships.

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?

Routes the agent concretely: 'Use the group ID with get_group_members and list_group_files', and for discussions/announcements it names the alternative tools with actual call signatures (list_discussion_topics, get_discussion_with_replies). Nothing is left to inference about which tool handles which follow-up.

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