assignments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only lists data fields; it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what the response structure looks like. For an un-annotated tool, this leaves critical operational behavior undocumented.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with no redundant padding. It front-loads the resource and enumerates key fields efficiently. However, its noun-phrase structure sacrifices explicit action clarity, which prevents a perfect score for structure.

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?

Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description is partially adequate. It tells the agent the fields of an assignment but does not explicitly state that the tool returns a list of assignments for the course, nor any output shape or edge cases. Without an output schema, this omission leaves a real gap for correct invocation and interpretation.

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% and the sole parameter 'courseid' is documented as 'Course id from my_courses' in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond 'in a course', so the schema does the heavy lifting. This matches the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 names the resource ('Assignments in a course') and lists concrete attributes (assignid, due date, max grade, brief), which clearly identifies what is returned. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', so the tool's action is inferred rather than stated. The mention of 'submission tools need' hints at its role but does not fully differentiate it from siblings without inference.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'the assignid the submission tools need' implies it should be used before submissions, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. Agents are left to infer usage context from sibling names alone.

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