missing_work_audit

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false), yet the description adds real behavior: it scans every active (not archived) course, filters out excused assignments, and includes a template summary in the payload. That goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention cost or latency of fanning out across all courses, though openWorldHint is set.

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 description is short and front-loads the what and the scope in the first sentence, then layers the return shape. The line break mid-sentence between the title line and 'Walks every active course' slightly hurts flow, but no sentence is wasted.

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 no-argument aggregate tool with an output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: which courses are included, which assignments are excluded, and the shape of the per-course breakdown. Only the cost/fan-out behavior of scanning all courses is left unstated.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to interpret and a 4 baseline applies. The description's mention of scope filtering ('active course', excused filtered out) effectively explains the implicit filtering behavior of a no-arg call.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource plus its scope: 'Cross-course missing/late assignment scan' and 'Walks every active course'. That distinguishes it from per-course siblings such as list_assignments and get_my_submission without needing the schema.

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 word 'cross-course' and 'walks every active course' imply this is the bulk/aggregate option, but the description never states when to prefer it over per-course tools like list_assignments or get_assignment, and names no exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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