list_moodle_assignments

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the scope of returned data (deadline, submission, grade status) and the meaning of missing_only, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or whether course omission aggregates across all courses beyond the schema's '省略=全部'.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads purpose, then routes to the two alternatives, then notes the key filter mode. No filler and no repetition of the tool name or title.

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?

For a 2-optional-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and the main filter well. Minor gap: no mention of result shape or multi-course aggregation behavior, but nothing blocking correct invocation.

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 both parameters are already documented (course format example, missing_only semantics). The description only restates the missing_only behavior, adding no new format or value detail beyond the schema, so the 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 verb (列/list) and resource (Moodle 作业) plus the exact scope it covers: 截止、提交和可用成绩状态. It also names the two sibling tools it is not, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly gives when-to-use-this vs alternatives: use list_moodle_due for calendar deadlines only, get_moodle_grades for grades/feedback only. It even flags the missing_only filter as a conditional usage mode.

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