Planner feed

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

The description adds context about the items being 'flagged with whether it has new activity and your submission state' and mentions date ordering, which goes beyond the annotations (which already confirm it is read-only, non-destructive, and open-world). No contradictions found.

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 a single sentence with essential details; it is front-loaded with the core function. The sibling reference adds a touch of extra context without being verbose. One could argue it is slightly dense but still efficient.

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 there is no output schema, the description reasonably covers return contents (item types and flags). With 3 optional parameters and clear annotations, the description is sufficient for a read-only listing tool. No major gaps are evident.

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?

All 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add further parameter info, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already 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 states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('Planner feed across all courses') and lists included item types. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'canvas_list_todo' by stating it is 'Richer', providing clear differentiation.

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 (for a comprehensive planner view including new activity and submission states) and hints at an alternative (the simpler 'canvas_list_todo'), but could be more explicit about when not to use it.

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