canvas_todo

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of each returned row and the timezone/format of the due value (北京时间 ISO8601), which is genuinely useful behavior beyond the name. It says nothing about ordering, pagination beyond the schema's limit, or whether the list is read-only, so it remains partial.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and return shape come first and the format caveat second. The dense parenthetical is readable but slightly crammed.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, disclosing the returned fields and the due-date format covers the essentials. Missing are ordering/default sort, and any tie-in to the dismiss tool, which an agent would need to act on the list.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter is already documented with its default and bounds. The description adds no parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the baseline for fully-documented schemas.

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?

"Canvas 待办列表" names the resource and operation clearly, and the parenthetical enumerates the fields returned (课程/类型/事项/截止/链接), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings such as canvas_deadlines or canvas_dismiss_todo, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Nothing states when this list should be preferred over canvas_deadlines, or that canvas_dismiss_todo is the mutation counterpart. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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