zju_list_course_homework

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses the read-only nature ('只读'), explains the behavior of include_submission and score visibility based on grading/publication status, and clarifies that weight_percent is a weight, not a score. This is comprehensive behavioral coverage.

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 paragraph of moderate length. It front-loads the main purpose and distinctions, but could benefit from bullet points or clearer separation of parameter effects. Still, every sentence adds value with minimal redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains key return fields (activity_id, score, weight_percent, submission details) and links to sibling tools for actions. It covers all essential aspects for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaningful context: course_id source from zju_list_courses, include_submission default true and its effect on response (submission details, score, comments). It explains return data tied to parameter values, exceeding schema alone.

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 states the tool lists '全部作业' (all homework) under a course, including various statuses, and provides activity_id for subsequent submission/retraction actions. It explicitly distinguishes from zju_list_todos, which only shows pending todos.

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 explicitly compares with zju_list_todos, noting this tool can handle 'completed' assignments while the sibling only handles pending ones. It also advises when to set include_submission to false for speed, and clarifies conditions for score/comment retrieval.

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