list_assignments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned (assignments with deadline and description) but does not mention read-only nature, pagination, sorting, or whether past assignments are excluded by default (even though the include_past parameter hints at this). No side effects or limitations are disclosed, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 concise at two sentences, but it is terse to the point of omitting necessary information. It front-loads the main purpose, which is good, but the second sentence could be integrated with more detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool but sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should fully specify the operation. It covers the return fields and cv_cid, but omits include_past semantics, any mention of sorting or pagination, and does not clarify the default scope (all assignments vs. upcoming). This leaves an agent uncertain about the tool's full behavior, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 explain all parameters. It explains that cv_cid filters to one course, but it does not mention include_past at all. The parameter's meaning is not self-evident from the name alone, so the absence of explanation is a notable gap. The description partially compensates for one parameter but fails for the other.

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 clearly states the tool returns assignments with deadline and description, identifying the resource and verb. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'list_upcoming_deadlines', which could overlap in scope. The mention of cv_cid filtering adds specificity but the overall purpose is clear enough without explicit differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_upcoming_deadlines or list_courses. It does not state whether this is the default assignment list or how it differs from upcoming deadlines. An agent would have to infer usage context from the tool name alone, which is insufficient.

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