Grade breakdown & what-if calculator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the behavioral trait that it shows 'what's graded, what's left, and your current standing' and that passing target_grade triggers a computation. 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second sentence precisely explains the optional parameter. Every sentence earns its place.

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's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete. It explains the breakdown, the what-if feature, and the parameter semantics. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., whether it returns per-group details or just a summary), which could be useful for the agent. Still, without an output schema, the description covers the main expectations well.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that `target_grade` is optional and used for the what-if calculation ('compute the average you need on all remaining work'), which is not in the schema. The `course_id` parameter is standard and needs no elaboration.

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 a specific verb ('break down') and clearly identifies the resource ('course grade by assignment group') and the tool's dual functionality: showing current standing and computing what-if scenarios. This distinguishes it from siblings like canvas_get_grades, which likely just returns a number, and canvas_list_assignments, which lists items without grade breakdown.

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 when to use the `target_grade` parameter ('Pass target_grade... to compute the average you need'), providing clear guidance for the what-if use case. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if you only need a single numerical grade, use canvas_get_grades instead), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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