Get Assignments

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose the return structure (three buckets, due dates, submission state), which helps, but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, pagination limits, or whether omitted classes cause extra calls. Partial coverage only.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the scoping detail trailing. No filler, though the phrasing is dense enough that the scope clause reads as an afterthought.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the parameters are fully documented, but with zero annotations the description should have covered at least the read-only/safety profile and pagination-across-classes behavior to be self-sufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents page, class_id and per_page fully. The description's 'or one class' aligns with class_id but adds no format or default detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (assignments) plus scope (across enrolled classes or a single class) and even the return shape (draft/upcoming/previous buckets with due dates and submission state). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the singular sibling get_assignment, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative (e.g. get_assignment for a single assignment, get_calendar_events for due-date views). The parenthetical about one class is scope information tied to the class_id parameter, not usage guidance.

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