list_rubrics

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that include_criteria defaults to True, clarifying optional behavior. No contradictions. It doesn't discuss rate limits or auth, but given annotations cover safety profile, this is adequate.

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 concise: one line purpose plus a short Args section. No superfluous words. Front-loaded with the main action.

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?

For a simple read operation with output schema, the description completely covers the tool's purpose and parameters. It's sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 description explains course_identifier as 'course code or Canvas ID' and include_criteria as including detailed criteria with default True. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only has types. Schema coverage is 0% by text, so description compensates well.

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 the verb 'list', the resource 'rubrics', and the scope 'in a specific course'. It also mentions optional detailed criteria, which helps differentiate from siblings like get_rubric.

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?

It indicates when to use: to list rubrics in a course. Though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives, the context (siblings like get_rubric) implies when not to use it. A mention of 'use get_rubric for a specific rubric' would earn a 5.

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