list_assignments

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It does add real behavioral value by disclosing that due dates are normalized to Istanbul time and that the status field uses a controlled vocabulary (pending/submitted/graded), which tells the agent how to interpret results. It says nothing about sort order, pagination, result size, or whether archived/submitted assignments are included.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the return fields enumerated after the colon. Every clause carries information, though the field list would read slightly better as a structured enumeration than as a comma run-on.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what comes back, and it does list the returned fields including status vocabulary and timezone. For a zero-parameter read tool this covers what an agent needs to call and interpret it. Only minor gaps remain: ordering, volume, and whether all courses or only enrolled ones are covered.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering input is needed by scoping itself to all courses. No parameter-level gaps exist to compensate for.

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 gives a specific verb (list) and resource (assignments across all courses, 'Tüm derslerin ödevleri'), and it enumerates what each item contains: title, course, status, due date, and link. That clearly separates it from siblings like list_courses and list_exams. The only gap is that the separation from list_exams is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'Tüm derslerin' implies there is no per-course filtering and that the tool returns a full sweep, which is useful scoping. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_exams or course_content, and it names no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage has to be inferred from the scope wording alone.

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