fiuba_assignments

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: it discloses what the read returns (submission status, grade, feedback) and states that times are Buenos Aires local, which prevents a timezone misinterpretation. No contradiction; the remaining gap is that it doesn't mention pagination or scope limits.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the primary capability front-loaded and the timezone caveat appended where it is needed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does name the key returned attributes plus the timezone convention. It is nearly complete for a single-parameter read tool, missing only pagination/ordering behavior.

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%, but there is only one required integer parameter, and the phrase "a course's assignments" makes clear it identifies the course. No format or source hints (e.g., where to obtain the course id) are given, and the schema itself documents nothing.

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?

Specific verb ('Lists') plus resource ('a course's assignments') and it enumerates the returned fields (due dates, submission status, grade, teacher feedback). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like fiuba_grades or fiuba_upcoming, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool scopes to a single course's assignments, which suggests calling it after identifying a course via fiuba_list_courses/fiuba_get_course. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of when fiuba_grades or fiuba_upcoming is the better choice.

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