canvas_list_modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the with_items inlining behavior and that max_chars bounds the returned payload (0 = server default), which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about permissions, pagination limits, or error conditions for an otherwise straightforward read tool.

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-loaded with the core purpose in the first line, followed by a single value-adding sentence and a compact Args block. No wasted prose; slightly more could have been trimmed but the structure is clean.

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-format explanation is unnecessary, and all parameters are documented. The remaining gap is usage routing against siblings and any permission context, minor for a read-only listing tool.

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 Args block does all the work — and it succeeds: course_id is explained as numeric with a CANVAS_DEFAULT_COURSE_ID fallback, with_items as inlining items with a default, and max_chars as a payload bound with 0 meaning the server default. All three parameters are semantically documented.

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 course modules') and frames the result as 'the course outline,' which distinguishes it from the many other list_* siblings targeting assignments, pages, quizzes, etc. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer, so not a full 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?

The phrase 'the fastest way to see how a course is actually structured week by week' implies when this tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., versus canvas_list_assignments or canvas_get_course). Usage is only implied.

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