cx_s_list_homeworks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the main behavioral signal. It clearly indicates a read/list operation and the output fields, but it does not mention prerequisites like session/login, pagination, sorting, or whether results are scoped only to the supplied courseRef.

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 one compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the parenthetical field list adds useful detail without waste.

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?

Although the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description leaves important gaps: courseRef semantics are undocumented, and the relationship to sibling tools like cx_s_get_homework_detail is not addressed. This is insufficient for reliable tool selection without additional context.

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% and the description does not explain courseRef beyond the general word '课程'. The agent cannot tell whether courseRef is an ID, name, or other reference, how to obtain it, or what format to use.

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 uses a specific verb ('列出') and resource ('课程作业'), and enumerates the returned fields (标题/状态/时间/详情链接). This makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling cx_s_get_homework_detail.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would use this when it needs a list of homework summaries for a course. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as cx_s_get_homework_detail for individual homework details.

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