canvas_list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful behaviors: course_id defaults to CANVAS_DEFAULT_COURSE_ID and search_term requires 3+ characters. However, it omits permission requirements, pagination/result-limit behavior, and any explicit read-only confirmation beyond the verb 'List'.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the argument notes follow compactly with no wasted prose. The 'Args:' formatting is slightly mechanical but not verbose.

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 described, and both parameters are covered. Still, for a list tool with no annotations it leaves unresolved how many results return, whether pagination applies, and what permissions are needed, leaving a moderate gap.

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 compensate, and it does: it documents both parameters, notes course_id is numeric and defaultable, and characterizes search_term as an optional filename substring filter with a 3+ character constraint. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types, though it could specify filter behavior more precisely.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List files uploaded to a course'), which is clearly distinct from write-oriented siblings like canvas_upload_file or canvas_download_file. It does not explicitly name or differentiate against those siblings, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as canvas_download_file (retrieve one file) or canvas_upload_file. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name, with no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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