List Assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' sentence adds little. What does add value is the disclosure of what each row contains (due dates, points, submission status), which matters because there is no output schema. No permission, pagination or rate-limit behavior is mentioned, but the annotation baseline covers the safety profile.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the returned-field summary front-loaded and the alternative routing placed second. Every clause carries a distinct piece of information.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining row contents and it does so. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning that results are paginated via limit or how many assignments are returned by default, but for a straightforward list tool the essentials 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: course_id sourcing, bucket enum values, search_term length rules and limit semantics are all documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'bucket' examples and 'name' filtering, so it neither adds syntax nor disambiguates bucket semantics (e.g. what 'undated' or 'ungraded' means). Baseline 3 is correct.

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 (list assignments in a course) and enumerates the fields returned: due dates, points, submission status. It also names the sibling that handles the single-item case (get_assignment), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

It names one alternative, get_assignment, and the condition that selects it (full instructions and rubric). However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus the close siblings list_upcoming_assignments, list_overdue_assignments, list_missing_submissions or list_todo, despite this tool's bucket enum overlapping those tools almost exactly.

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