list_assignments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the returned fields, giving a basic expectation of output, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe limitations such as pagination, ordering, or filtering. The lack of side-effect disclosure is less critical for a list operation but still a gap.

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 compact fragment with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and easily scannable. Every word contributes meaning, making this an appropriately concise and well-structured description.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not cover the input context, usage conditions, or list constraints. It repeats what appears to be the output fields but omits the crucial course scoping and any filtering, ordering, or pagination behavior. For a tool with one required parameter and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the required 'course' parameter at all. The listed fields refer to assignment output, not to how the course parameter should be supplied or what values it accepts. The description fails to compensate for the absence of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 indicates that the tool returns all assignments and lists the included fields (id, name, points, due date, published state). The phrase 'Every assignment' distinguishes it from tools like get_assignment that fetch a single assignment. However, it is a fragment rather than a full sentence and doesn't explicitly mention the course scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_assignment or list_assignment_groups. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the required 'course' parameter. The description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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