list_assignment_groups

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what the output format is, or whether it requires a course parameter. The description is purely a static noun phrase and entirely fails to address behavior.

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 (6 words), which is concise, but it is a fragment rather than a structured sentence. It conveys the general topic but lacks a verb and context. This is not the extreme under-specification of 'Process', but it is still too minimal to be considered well-structured.

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 tool has one required parameter and no annotations. While an output schema exists, the description does not explain that this tool likely lists groups for a specific course, nor does it clarify the relationship between 'assignment groups' and 'weights'. The description is incomplete for a tool that takes a course parameter and likely returns data.

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 has one parameter, 'course', with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter or explain its meaning or allowed values. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it adds no parameter information whatsoever.

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 'Assignment groups and their weights' is a noun phrase, not a verb phrase, so it does not clearly state what action the tool performs. The name 'list_assignment_groups' suggests listing, but the description fails to confirm this and does not distinguish from sibling tools like list_assignments.

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. The description only states content ('assignment groups and their weights') but does not provide context, prerequisites, or mention of other tools that might be more appropriate.

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