canvas_courses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does not. It says nothing about authentication scope beyond 'current account', ordering, pagination, whether archived or unpublished enrollments are excluded from 'active', or what each course entry contains, so an agent cannot predict the shape or limits of the response.

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 definition is one compact sentence that puts the resource first and packs the state options into a parenthetical, with no filler. The nested parentheses make it slightly harder to parse, but nothing is wasted.

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?

This is a simple read tool with two optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, so it need not explain return values. Still, the description omits basic behaviors such as ordering, pagination, and the fields in each course entry, which leaves the behavioral picture incomplete in the absence of annotations.

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%, and both parameters, state and keyword, are fully documented in the schema, including enum values and default. The description only restates those same facts ('active/completed/all', '关键词过滤') without adding filtering syntax, matching rules, or case sensitivity, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb '列出' (list) and the resource 'Canvas 课程列表' are explicit, and the scope is limited to the current account. Among its Canvas siblings, such as canvas_deadlines, canvas_todo, and canvas_files, this is the only tool that lists courses. However, the description does not name a sibling that handles a related task, so the distinction is not explicit.

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 it by offering the active, completed, and all states, which are effectively usage modes, but it never states a when-to-use or when-not-to-use rule, or a prerequisite. Because it also does not say how it relates to the course-related siblings such as canvas_deadlines or canvas_assignment_info, the guidance is only implied.

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