List upcoming assignments across every enrolled course within a set number of days, returned in order of soonest deadline.
Return upcoming assignments across all student courses, sorted by due time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds the sort order and all-courses scope, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or how the time window is bounded.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is tight, though the same brevity leaves the 'days' parameter unaddressed.
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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However the lone parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and there is no routing guidance against the sibling listing tools.
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 single 'days' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and a default of 14, yet the description never explains it. The word 'upcoming' gestures at a window but leaves the parameter's meaning (lookahead horizon?) entirely to inference.
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 ('Return'), resource ('upcoming assignments'), scope ('across all student courses') and ordering ('sorted by due time'). This scope reasonably separates it from gradescope_list_assignments, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 word 'upcoming' and 'across all student courses' imply the time-window/all-courses use case versus a course-scoped listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative is referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.