list_grades

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 explicitly mentions that items not yet published appear with score 'Not ready' and released:false, and explains how to filter them. This is valuable behavioral detail that goes beyond the schema. It does not mention pagination or error conditions, but for a read-only list tool, the key behaviors are covered.

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 and well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second paragraph provides a key behavioral nuance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or irrelevant details. The critical information about unpublished items is front-loaded.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the parameters, the behavior around unpublished items, and the meaning of the output fields 'score' and 'released'. It falls slightly short by not specifying other output fields or potential response formats, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so fully: cv_cid is explained as filtering to one course, and released_only is explained as hiding unpublished items. Both parameters receive meaningful semantic explanations that the schema lacks, making it easy for an agent to use them correctly.

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 lists 'Graded items and their scores' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_assignments (assignments vs. grades) and get_assignment (single assignment), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to view grades, including outstanding items) and explains the released_only flag for hiding unpublished items. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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