list_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. It discloses that the tool returns assignments, deadlines, and submission status, and that it can filter by course. However, it does not disclose behavior around the include_completed parameter (e.g., default false means completed assignments are excluded), nor any pagination, ordering, or side effects. For a read-only query tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 concise sentence in Korean, front-loading the main purpose and scope. It is efficient and easy to parse. It could be slightly more structured by separating the filtering options, but it earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably documented there. The description covers the main query dimensions (all/specific course, deadlines, submission status). However, given the sibling tools get_pending_assignments and get_upcoming_deadlines, the description should clarify how this tool differs (e.g., it lists all assignments including completed ones if include_completed=true, while siblings focus on pending/upcoming). This missing differentiation makes it incomplete for an agent to choose correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains course_id implicitly ('지정한 과목' - specified course) and mentions submission status, which relates to include_completed. However, it does not explain the exact meaning of include_completed (whether it includes or excludes completed assignments) or the default behavior. The description adds some meaning but leaves a key parameter ambiguous.

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 states a clear verb ('조회한다' - retrieves) and resource (assignments), and specifies the key attributes returned (과제, 마감일, 제출 여부 - assignments, deadlines, submission status). It also distinguishes between all courses and a specified course. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_pending_assignments or get_upcoming_deadlines, which also deal with assignments.

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 implies usage context: use this to view assignments for all or a specific course, with deadlines and submission status. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs. get_pending_assignments or get_upcoming_deadlines, nor does it mention the include_completed parameter's role in filtering. The context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are not addressed.

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