list_assignments

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the lower bar applies. The description nonetheless adds real behavior: ordering ('Open assignments come first') and the shape of what is returned. It does not mention that results may be cached, which matters given the refresh parameter.

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?

Three tight sentences, no waste, with the result content and ordering front-loaded ahead of the sibling routing note. Every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explication, and ordering plus field coverage are given. The only gap is the caching/refresh interaction implied by the refresh parameter, a minor omission for a read-only list tool.

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 course, refresh, and include_closed are fully documented in the schema, including the non-obvious include_closed default of true. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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+resource+scope ('All assignments in one course') and enumerates the returned fields (status, due date, submission, released grade). It also names the sibling it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from get_assignment_details 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?

Explicitly routes single-assignment lookups to get_assignment_details, giving a clear alternative with the selecting condition. It does not address the other plausible sibling for deadline aggregation, get_upcoming_deadlines, so the guidance stops just short of a full routing statement.

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