scan_course_content_accessibility

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description's use of 'scan' aligns with a read-only operation. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as whether the scan is fast or what happens on errors.

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 and includes a structured args section. While efficient, it could benefit from a clearer separation of purpose and parameters, but overall it is well-organized and to the point.

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?

An output schema exists, so missing return value info is acceptable. However, the description does not mention error conditions, rate limits, or what 'basic accessibility issues' entails, leaving some ambiguity regarding the tool's output and behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the parameters: course_identifier as course code or Canvas ID, and content_types as comma-separated types listing examples (pages, assignments, discussions, syllabus). This adds meaning beyond the schema's default value.

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 tool scans Canvas course content for basic accessibility issues, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'fix_accessibility_issues' and 'format_accessibility_summary' by focusing on scanning.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to scan vs. fix issues. It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and its siblings.

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