canvas_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no token material is revealed (a security/privacy guarantee an agent could not infer) and explains that the 'tools' section reports what the server published versus what a safety flag withheld. It stops short of stating auth requirements or error behavior, but the disclosure of non-sensitive output and the withheld-tools semantics is substantive.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the safety guarantee, then the trigger conditions. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still usefully characterises the 'tools' section of the response. For a zero-parameter, no-annotation diagnostic tool, this covers everything an agent needs to decide to call it and interpret the result.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify. The description adds nothing about parameters because nothing exists to add.

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?

States a specific verb (Check) and resource (Canvas connectivity, identity, enabled tool tiers), which no sibling tool covers — every sibling is a content operation. An agent can immediately tell this is the server's diagnostic/probe tool rather than a Canvas data operation.

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?

Gives two explicit, actionable triggers: 'Call this first whenever another Canvas tool fails' and 'when a tool you expected is missing.' These are unambiguous when-to-use conditions that no other tool's description would need to state.

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