list_coursework

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' and provides no information about default state filtering, pagination, return format, or that only PUBLISHED coursework is returned by default, which is behavior an agent would need to know.

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 a single efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. It earns its place without wasted words, though it is somewhat terse and could have included a bit more context without harming readability.

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?

The description is adequate for a straightforward list tool: it names the resource, scopes it to a course, and the schema covers parameters and defaults. However, with no output schema and no annotation, the agent gets little context about pagination limits or default filtering, leaving minor gaps for a complete picture.

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?

The input schema describes all four parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The description's phrase 'assignments, quizzes, and coursework' loosely aligns with the courseWorkStates and orderBy parameters but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('assignments, quizzes, and coursework') for a specific course, making the tool's purpose clear. It differentiates from list_courses by scoping to a course, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as get_coursework or list_coursework_materials.

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 tool versus alternatives like get_coursework or list_coursework_materials. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from sibling names alone.

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