gradescope_list_assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description does add genuine behavioral context by explaining that the `status` value is passed through exactly as parsed and deliberately not normalized into submitted/not-submitted — useful fidelity information an agent would otherwise guess wrong about.

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?

Two short paragraphs that are front-loaded with the primary action; no filler or repetition. The second paragraph is arguably tangential for a listing tool (it describes a returned field rather than a call-time concern), which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 an output schema present, the return shape need not be explained, and annotations cover the operation's safety semantics. The gap is the undocumented required course_id and the absence of any routing against gradescope_upcoming_assignments, so an agent has enough to call it but not enough to always pick it 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the single required parameter course_id is completely undocumented in structured fields, and the description does not compensate — it never states the expected format or source of a course_id. Paragraph two discusses a `status` field that is not even a parameter of this tool, adding no parameter-level clarity.

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 (List) and resource (assignments) scoped to one Gradescope course, so the core purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling gradescope_upcoming_assignments, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between a full listing and an upcoming-only listing.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools. The only hint is the implicit 'for one Gradescope course' scoping, which the agent must extrapolate into usage conditions on its own.

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