canvas_assignment_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains the filtering behavior with detailed bucket definitions (e.g., 'overdue: Past due, not submitted'), which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it lacks information on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral context for a tool with no output schema.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by bullet points for filters and usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying functionality without unnecessary repetition or fluff, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, filtering behavior, and usage contexts well. However, it lacks details on response structure, error handling, or authentication needs, which would be beneficial for a tool with no output schema and no annotations.

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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing bucket filter options, but this is largely redundant with the schema's enum descriptions. It does not provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema specifies, meeting the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'List assignments in a course with optional filtering,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like canvas_assignment_get (detailed view) and canvas_missing_submissions (specific filter) by emphasizing listing with various bucket filters rather than retrieving individual assignments or focusing only on missing submissions.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Use this to: - See upcoming deadlines - Find overdue assignments - Get assignment IDs for detailed views'), which helps differentiate it from alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific sibling tools as alternatives, such as canvas_assignment_get for detailed views or canvas_missing_submissions for a narrower filter.

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