list_pending_assignments

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the status filter, grouping, ordering by deadline, and inclusion of overdue indicator. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or authorization, but for a read-only list tool this is reasonable.

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 compact sentences deliver all essential information—what is listed, statuses included, grouping, sorting, and default scope—without redundantly repeating the schema.

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?

The description covers statuses, grouping, sorting, default behavior, and overdue flag. Since there is no output schema, an agent gets enough to call the tool correctly. Minor missing details (sort direction, pagination, return format) prevent a perfect score.

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 no descriptions and only shows account/course_id as nullable strings. The description adds crucial semantics: omitting them means scanning all accounts/courses(), which is more than the bare schema provides. It stops short of explaining expected ID formats.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List'), names the exact resource ('pending assignments'), enumerates the included statuses (NEW, CREATED, RECLAIMED_BY_STUDENT), and specifies grouping and sorting. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_courses or get_assignment.

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 description explains the behavior when parameters are omitted ('Sin account ni course_id revisa todos los cursos activos de todas las cuentas'), giving a clear decision rule. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the context makes the appropriate use obvious.

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