moodle_list_assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavior beyond that — no ordering, pagination, or how hidden/completed courses affect results — only a field inventory, which belongs to output documentation.

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 dense, front-loaded sentence that enumerates the returned fields without filler. The parenthetical about cmid's URL origin aids comprehension, though the long comma-separated enumeration mildly reduces scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing id, cmid, name, dates, grading and submission types — enough for an agent to use the result. It stops short of noting ordering or whether all assignments or only visible ones are returned.

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?

There is a single parameter (courseId) with 100% schema description coverage including its origin (moodle_list_courses or the view.php URL). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource precisely ('Assignments of a course (Assignment activity, mod_assign)') and hints at scope, so an agent can tell it apart from moodle_list_submissions and moodle_get_submission. It lacks an explicit verb ('List'), relying on the tool name to supply the action, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

'assignment id (needed by the other tools)' implies this is a prerequisite lookup step before calling sibling tools, which is useful implied usage. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative (e.g. use moodle_list_submissions for submission data), so guidance stays implied rather than stated.

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