List Upcoming Assignments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false and openWorldHint, so 'Read-only' in the text is redundant. The description does add non-structured context: results are sorted soonest-first and drawn from the same Planner feed as the Canvas dashboard, which tells the agent what will and will not appear. It says nothing about result limits, pagination, or the vaguer 'other planner items'.

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 with no filler: window and scope first, then the read-only/provenance note, then the optional flag. Every clause carries 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 what comes back, and it only implies it (assignments plus planner items, ordered soonest first) without saying what fields or how many results. It is adequate for invocation but leaves the agent guessing about the response shape and about how this differs from the many sibling list tools.

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%, so both parameters (days, include_completed) are already documented, and the description largely restates them (default 7, include completed items). The one addition is that the window applies 'across all active courses', which clarifies scope rather than parameter syntax.

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 and resource ('List assignments and other planner items'), plus concrete scope: next N days, all active courses, soonest first. It stops short of naming how it differs from close siblings such as list_todo or list_upcoming_events, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 states the default window (7 days) and explains when to flip include_completed, which is real usage guidance. It never says when to prefer this over list_todo, list_upcoming_events, get_week_ahead, or list_overdue_assignments, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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