uplus_list_homeworks

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 a real behavioral trait: refresh_page_state opens each answer page to read the button label, implying extra requests and cost. It omits prerequisites (the existence of uplus_check_login suggests auth may be required), any rate/pagination behavior, and whether listing itself is a pure read.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the optional flag's caveat. No padding, though the backtick/markdown formatting is slightly at odds with plain-text spacing.

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, all-optional read tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scoping, and the one non-obvious parameter's tradeoff. Return values needn't be explained given the output schema, so nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it mostly does: it explains course_id's default semantics (omitted = every configured course) and what refresh_page_state actually does and when to enable it. It adds meaning beyond the bare boolean type, though it doesn't specify course_id's format (ID vs name).

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 homeworks") plus the scoping rule (one course vs all configured courses when omitted), which is enough to distinguish it from uplus_list_courses or uplus_inspect_homework. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the closely related inspect/answer siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 description gives a clear conditional for the refresh_page_state flag ("use it when API status looks ambiguous"), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never says when to call this tool rather than uplus_inspect_homework or uplus_answer_homework, so tool-level selection is left implicit.

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