List my courses

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint=true` and `destructiveHint=false`, making the non-mutating behavior clear. The description adds crucial behavioral context by specifying the default `state` behavior ('active' by default) and the scope of included data (current score/grade). A small gap remains: it doesn't explicitly state that results are scoped to the authenticated user (implied by 'my courses' in the title), but the combination of title, description, and annotations is strong.

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 two sentences long with zero wasted words. The first sentence establishes purpose and key feature (score/grade), the second sentence clearly explains the parameter's behavioral effect. 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 low complexity (1 optional param, no output schema) and the richness of annotations and schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains the filter behavior and default clearly. The only minor gap is lacking explicit mention of the return format (e.g., pagination or structure), but this is acceptable for a simple list tool with no output schema and a strong title.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter and its enum values. The description adds significant meaning by explaining the real-world mapping of each enum value ('this semester', 'past courses', 'everything'), which is not present in the schema's generic 'Enrollment state filter' description. This goes beyond the schema baseline of 3.

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 provides a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('the user's Canvas courses'), and the unique value ('with current score/grade per course'). It distinguishes this tool from the sibling `canvas_list_modules`, `canvas_get_course`, and `canvas_get_grades` by bundling score display with the list, making its purpose immediately obvious and distinct.

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 tells the agent when to use which filter: `state='active'` for the current semester, `state='completed'` for past courses, and `state='all'` for everything. This provides clear context and exclusions (e.g., not for a specific course detail, which belongs to `canvas_get_course`), and implicitly guides against misuse.

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