get_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 effectively describes the return format (e.g., ISO 8601 dates, specific field mappings like CustomInstructions.Text) and hints at functionality (e.g., comparing dates to find upcoming/overdue items). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and return details, followed by usage examples. While slightly verbose due to the list of example queries, each sentence adds practical value for an AI agent, and there's no redundant information.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining the return structure and usage context. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential edge cases (e.g., what happens if no assignments exist) or linking more explicitly to sibling tools beyond get_assignment_submissions.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the optionality of orgUnitId (implied through the example queries that don't require it) and its relationship to the D2L_COURSE_ID env var, providing context beyond the schema's technical specification.

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 specific action ('List all assignments for a course') and the resource ('assignments'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_assignment (singular) and get_assignment_submissions. It explicitly lists the returned fields and their purposes, making the tool's function 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 explicit usage scenarios with example queries ('What assignments do I have?', 'What's due this week?', etc.), guiding when to use this tool. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting that the returned Id is needed for get_assignment_submissions, clarifying the relationship between tools.

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