blackboard_list_assignments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose a non-obvious behavior: it includes group assessments normally hidden from the student gradebook API and marks them with gradebookAccess: restricted. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or response structure beyond the listed fields, leaving some gaps.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated upfront, and the second sentence adds a valuable edge case without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple list operation with a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (due dates, scores, submission status) and the special inclusion of hidden group assessments. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning pagination or limits, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 only parameter, courseId, is fully described in the schema with a pattern and a human-readable description. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage details about the parameter, so it does not exceed the baseline given the 100% schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('List') and resource ('assignments and tasks in a course') with clear output fields (due dates, scores, submission status). It also adds a distinguishing detail about including group assessments hidden from the gradebook API, which differentiates it from other list tools like blackboard_list_attempts or blackboard_get_grades.

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 implies usage for retrieving assignment/task data but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative tools such as blackboard_get_grades or blackboard_list_attempts. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer based on the name and fields.

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