list_announcements

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral burden. It mentions sorting order but omits critical behaviors: pagination (limit parameter), default limits, whether announcements include attachments or metadata, and whether any authentication or permissions are needed. The agent is left without details on what happens with the limit or how results are returned.

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 concise sentence that captures the core purpose and ordering. It is appropriately front-loaded with the main action. Omitting details is a trade-off but not verbose, so it earns a 4 for clarity relative to length.

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?

Given three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the role of limit and account, nor does it specify the output format (e.g., fields of each announcement). The sorting detail is helpful but not enough for full context.

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 for all parameters. It does not explain course_id, limit, or account at all, leaving agents to infer from parameter names. Since there is no parameter documentation in the schema, the lack of explanation is a significant gap, though parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory.

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?

Description clearly indicates it lists announcements for a course, sorted by most recent to oldest, which defines the core function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_courses or list_pending_assignments, but the resource (announcements) is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a course from list_courses) or when to prefer other tools. Usage is implied for listing announcements but with no exclusions or context.

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