List assignments in a course

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them (no contradiction). On top of that, the description adds genuine behavioral context: the conditional nature of class statistics ('when Canvas allows it') and the disclosure that New Quizzes surface here. This meaningfully exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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 dense sentences with zero filler. The core action and return contents are front-loaded, followed by the conditional statistics caveat and a practical edge-case note. Every sentence carries information.

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 simple list tool with 2 params (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the action, what is returned, and an important data-inclusion caveat. Minor gaps exist — no mention of pagination, ordering, or response shape — but nothing an agent critically needs to invoke the tool correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents courseId and bucket (with enum values explained). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; the 'New Quizzes' note relates to tool behavior rather than parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 (list), resource (assignments in a course), and enriches the purpose by naming what is returned (submission status, conditional class score statistics) and the intended use (comparison). The 'New Quizzes' note further differentiates it from siblings like canvas_list_quizzes and canvas_get_assignment. 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?

The trigger condition ('list assignments in a course') is clear, and the New Quizzes note gives practical routing guidance (quiz-related lookups may need this tool). However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when NOT to use it versus canvas_get_grades, canvas_get_assignment, or canvas_list_quizzes. Context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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