list_rubrics

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation, and the description's 'List' verb is consistent with that, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds little beyond the annotation—it doesn't address potential large result sets, pagination, or permission requirements. With the annotation covering the core safety profile, the description provides marginal extra context by emphasizing the course scoping.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'List all rubrics in a specific course with optional detailed criteria.' Every word serves a purpose, with the action verb first and no redundancy. It is a model of efficiency, packing the core function, scoping, and optional behavior into 12 words.

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 read-only, 2-parameter list operation with a clear name and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is sufficient to inform an agent of the primary behavior. It correctly signals the required course_identifier and the optional include_criteria. A more verbose description of return values or error handling would be unnecessary given the simplicity of the tool.

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%: include_criteria is documented as 'Include detailed criteria and ratings (default: True)' and course_identifier as 'Course code or Canvas ID'. The description's phrase 'optional detailed criteria' and 'specific course' gently echo these parameters but add no new information beyond the schema. Per calibration, with high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the specific verb 'List' followed by the resource 'rubrics' scoped to 'a specific course', which directly maps to the required course_identifier parameter. It clearly differentiates collection-level behavior from singular sibling tools like get_rubric and get_rubric_assessment by emphasizing 'all rubrics'. The optional criteria phrase pre-empts the include_criteria parameter, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its sibling alternatives such as get_rubric (singular) or get_rubric_assessment. There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statements. While the list semantics are implied, the description misses the opportunity to direct an agent to fetch a single rubric via get_rubric when only one is needed.

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