scan_course_content_accessibility

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which already communicates the read-only nature. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond 'scan', such as what constitutes 'basic' issues, whether it modifies anything, or what the output format is. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding.

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 (2 parameters, read-only), the description is adequate but could mention what the scan returns or how to interpret 'basic accessibility issues'. With no output schema and many related sibling tools, a brief note on output or use cases would improve completeness.

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% (both parameters are described), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, but it doesn't need to since the schema is self-explanatory.

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 action (scan) and resource (Canvas course content) with the specific purpose (accessibility issues). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fix_accessibility_issues or fetch_ufixit_report by focusing on scanning for basic issues.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch_ufixit_report or parse_ufixit_violations. It doesn't mention prerequisites, output interpretation, or when not to use it. The description is purely declarative without situational context.

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