Get my Canvas profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's main behavioral contribution is specifying the returned fields. It adds no details about authentication scope, rate limits, or error behaviors, but for a simple read-only profile fetch, this is acceptable. No contradictions with annotations.

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 consists of two short sentences with no wasted words. The action and output are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating what it does and providing a usage hint.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description fully covers the purpose, usage context, and output format. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. Per the guidelines, zero parameters warrant a baseline of 4. The description implicitly confirms no parameters are needed, which adds no new meaning but aligns with expected behavior.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' with the resource 'Canvas profile' and lists the returned fields (name, primary email, id). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like canvas_auth_status or canvas_list_courses by focusing specifically on the authenticated user's own profile.

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 explicitly states one primary use case: 'Use this to verify the API token works.' This gives clear guidance on when to apply the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but given the tool's simplicity, the provided guidance is sufficient.

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