ntulearn_get_assignments

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description goes further by disclosing merging behavior (exact-match), conflict surfacing (conflicting deadlines), provenance (source links) and a trust caveat for unverified excerpts. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is aggregated before the caveats, and no filler. The internal jargon ('exact-match merging', 'documentScan') is compact but assumes familiarity with the tool's return object.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names coverage indicators (errors/truncated/documentScan) and provenance, but omits anything about batching across course_ids, result limits, or truncation behavior tied to max_items/max_documents. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 4-parameter aggregation 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 0% and none of the four parameters (max_items, course_ids, max_documents, include_documents) are explained in prose. The mention of 'assignment documents' and documentScan implicitly gestures at the document-related flags, but limits, defaults and the meaning of course_ids are left entirely to the schema's bare types.

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 a concrete resource (assignments) and specifies the sources it reconciles: gradebook, calendar and assignment pages, plus unverified deadline excerpts. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names a sibling (e.g. ntulearn_get_upcoming or ntulearn_get_gradebook) to differentiate itself from the tools that overlap most.

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?

There is no stated condition for choosing this tool over ntulearn_get_upcoming or ntulearn_get_gradebook, even though the sibling set shows heavy overlap. The only guidance given ('never treat excerpts as confirmed deadlines') is about interpreting results, not about when to invoke the tool.

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