scf_list_assignments

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with '(read — viewer role)', adding the permission level. No destructive behavior is implied, but the description doesn't cover pagination or response format. With readOnlyHint covering the safety profile, the extra role info provides modest added value.

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 redundant words. The first sentence states the core action and scope; the second covers filtering. Ideal length and front-loaded with the purpose.

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 with three optional filters, the description covers actions, targets, role, and filtering strategies. It doesn't specify return format or pagination, but the absence of an output schema and low complexity make this acceptable. It would benefit from clarifying that assignable_type and assignable_id should be used together.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds relational meaning: it shows how filters combine ('item type and id') and presents user_id as an alternative with a real-world purpose (seeing one person's workload). This goes slightly beyond what 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 opens with the verb 'List', names the resource 'user assignments', and specifies the target set 'controls, evidence items or tasks'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scf_list_team_assignments, whose name targets a different resource.

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 gives clear context: a viewer can read assignments, and filtering by item type/id or by user_id supports specific use cases ('one person's workload'). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like scf_list_team_assignments or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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