elearning_list_tugas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Mengambil" implies a safe read, and the returned fields are listed, but nothing is said about authentication requirements, result volume/pagination, or whether the list is scoped to the logged-in student or spans all courses. Adequate but with clear gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

One well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and the return payload compactly enumerated; nothing is wasted. It could be slightly stronger if it added a routing clause toward the detail tool.

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?

A simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema; the description covers the action and the fields returned, which is most of what an agent needs. The absence of authentication and scoping context is the remaining shortfall.

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% and the single mapel_id parameter is already documented as an optional course-ID filter, so the schema does the work. The description adds no filter semantics beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 ("Mengambil daftar tugas kuliah mahasiswa") and enumerates the returned fields (deadline, mata kuliah, dosen, status pengerjaan), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling elearning_get_tugas_detail, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The word "daftar" (list) hints that this is the bulk-listing counterpart to elearning_get_tugas_detail, but that contrast is never made explicit, and there is no mention of prerequisites such as needing to authenticate via elearning_login first.

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