What To Do Now

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 does so by detailing the exact mix of items included: due-soon, overdue, not-open, quiz check-items, and submitted work. This goes well beyond a generic 'returns to-do list' and gives the agent a solid model of the tool's behavior, even if it doesn't mention output structure.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then immediately providing practical usage guidance. The category list is dense but structured and easy to parse. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

This is a low-complexity read-only retrieval tool with two optional, well-documented parameters. The description covers what the list contains, the scope, and when to use it. Since there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of categories effectively communicates the expected return content. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 already describes both parameters fully, including defaults, ranges, and meanings, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific context. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the descriptive load.

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 clearly defines the tool as a prioritized to-do list across all courses, enumerating specific categories like overdue, not-open, and submitted work. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_upcoming_due_dates, which likely only covers due dates. The verb 'get' plus the resource 'to-do list' and the scope 'across all courses' makes the purpose 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 description gives explicit usage context: 'Use this first when the user asks what to work on, what's left, or what they should do now.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not rules, but the clear trigger phrases are sufficient for most decision-making.

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