List Assignment Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the returned content, specifically grade weights, drop rules, and optional assignments.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and wastes no words. Each sentence contributes either scope, returned data, or sibling routing.

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?

For a read-only list tool with rich annotations and a fully documented two-parameter schema, the description supplies enough context about what the tool returns. No output schema is present, but the description names the key return fields and the optional assignment inclusion.

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%, with both course_id and include_assignments fully documented. The description mentions the optional assignments behavior, but this largely repeats the schema rather than adding syntax or format details.

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: listing a course's assignment groups with grade weights and drop rules. It distinguishes the tool from get_course_grade_breakdown by noting that the sibling performs the grade math.

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?

Gives a clear use context and explicitly names get_course_grade_breakdown as the alternative for final-grade calculations. It does not explicitly compare against get_assignment_group, so it stops short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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