List course pages

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which already cover safety. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that, such as pagination, rate limits, or that it lists all pages by default. Since annotations provide the core safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal extra context.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and then the filter detail. No wasted words. It earns a high score for brevity, but could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness.

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 simplicity (list operation with 2 params) and the strong annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. It doesn't explain the return format, but no output schema exists, so the agent might need to infer that. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement.

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 have descriptions. The description mentions that search_term filters by title, which adds some semantic value beyond the schema's 'Filter pages by title'. However, it doesn't add new meaning for course_id. Baseline 3 is justified since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function: list a course's wiki pages. It includes the resource ('wiki pages') and the course scope, which differentiates it from sibling tools like canvas_list_modules or canvas_get_page. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it returns a list (as opposed to a single page), but the verb 'list' implies that.

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 usage for listing pages and mentions the optional search_term filter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus canvas_get_page or other list tools. There is no mention of when not to use it or alternatives, but given the clear purpose, the usage context is reasonably implied.

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