canvas_list_courses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are auth-scoped to the caller's visibility and that output ids are the universal course identifier, which is useful context. However, it says nothing about pagination, result volume, read-only safety, or what happens with an invalid enrollment_state value.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then the 'start here' guidance, then the args — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. The multiline Args block is slightly loose but every line carries required information.

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 two-parameter, zero-required list tool with an output schema, the description supplies what the structured fields lack: allowed values for both filters and the downstream significance of the returned id. Return shape is correctly left to the output schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description must do all the work, and it does: it enumerates enrollment_state values with the default (active, completed, invited_or_pending) and enrollment_type values by role (teacher, ta, student, observer, designer) plus the empty-for-all semantics. Case/syntax and combined-filter behavior are still unspecified, keeping it out of the top band.

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 and resource ('List the courses') and immediately qualifies scope ('the authenticated user can see'). It further orients the agent relative to siblings by declaring itself the entry point when the course id is unknown, so it is distinguishable from canvas_get_course and the many course_id-consuming tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Start here when you do not know the course id' and explains that the returned id feeds every other tool's course_id parameter, which is genuine routing guidance. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool or stating when not to use it (e.g. if the id is already known, use canvas_get_course).

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