Module completion progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral traits beyond annotations by detailing the specific output structure (module states, item requirements, completion status). No contradictions exist.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Show module-by-module progress') and efficiently packs all key details about states and requirements without any waste.

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?

The description adequately explains the return value structure (module states, per-item requirements and completion) despite no output schema. It covers the main aspects an agent needs to understand the tool's output, though it does not specify the exact hierarchical format.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for course_id and incomplete_only. The tool description adds no extra meaning for the parameters beyond what the schema provides; it describes the output instead. Baseline 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 clearly states it shows module-by-module progress including states (locked/started/completed) and per-item requirements (view/submit/contribute/score) with completion status. This distinguishes it from the sibling canvas_list_modules which only lists modules without progress details.

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 implies when to use this tool—when module-level progress and per-item requirements are needed. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear given sibling tools.

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