list_assignments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the output shape, sorting order by deadline, handling of missing data with a prompt message, and the all-courses fallback behavior. It does not discuss edge cases like pagination or authentication, but for a simple read tool the disclosure is strong.

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 compact sentences cover the core behavior, the optional parameter semantics, output fields, sorting, and empty-result behavior. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, and the description covers input semantics, output contents, ordering, and the no-result case. Since an output schema exists, return value details do not need further elaboration.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the only parameter: course_id is optional, has a format example (CS101), and omitting it returns all courses' assignments. This is more than the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: querying course assignment lists with deadlines. It distinguishes itself from sibling course-related tools by clearly targeting assignments, and it explains the optional course_id behavior upfront.

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 clearly explains when to pass course_id and what happens when it is omitted, which is clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the naming and purpose make the intended use unambiguous.

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