Upcoming events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces these by stating it's a non-destructive read ('upcoming events and assignment due dates'). It adds value beyond annotations by clarifying the temporal scope ('next ~2 weeks') and the fact it spans all courses, which openWorldHint alone does not specify.

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 of 12 words, front-loaded with the key verb and resource. Every word earns its place ('upcoming', 'Canvas events and assignment due dates', 'across all courses', 'next ~2 weeks'). No redundancy or filler.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns, its scope ('across all courses'), and its time window ('next ~2 weeks'). One could argue for clarifying the return format (e.g., 'returns a list of events with dates'), but the lack of output schema makes this less critical. The essential context is well covered.

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% with zero parameters, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds no parameter info, but the baseline is 4 for zero-param tools. It could briefly hint at the output format or time window, but the high coverage already means the schema is fully handled.

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 ('upcoming') and resource ('Canvas events and assignment due dates') with clear scope ('across all courses, next ~2 weeks'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like canvas_list_assignments (which lacks the global upcoming view), canvas_list_todo (which may have a different scope), and canvas_list_calendar_events (which is broader). The scope and resource are precisely defined.

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?

Although no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative is named, the description clearly states the scope ('across all courses' and 'next ~2 weeks'), which implicitly guides the agent: use this for a consolidated upcoming view over a limited horizon; for a single course's assignments or full calendar, use sibling tools. In context of zero-parameter tool, the explicit scope is sufficient without needing more detail.

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