List Assignment Groups

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already signal safety. The description adds behavioral clarity by explaining how include parameters transform the response shape (nesting assignments) and affect scope. It doesn't discuss pagination or default behavior, but for a read-only list with strong annotations, this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, both packed with actionable information. The first defines the resource, the second explains the include parameter with an explicit example. No fluff, perfectly sized.

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 the high schema coverage and readOnly annotation, the description covers the core semantics (what the tool returns, how to get nested assignments, how to augment with other includes). It misses explicit mention of filter parameters like grading_period_id or scope_assignments_to_student, but the 100% schema coverage and simplicity of the list operation make this acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by paraphrasing the key includes and their semantic effect (nesting assignments, adding metadata). The explanation of 'etc.' plus specific JSON-like example demonstrates practical usage beyond the schema.

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 assignment groups (categories) in a course, using specific verb+resource language. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_assignments by framing groups as categories with nested assignments.

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 strong guidance on how to use the tool, especially include=assignments for nesting and other includes like submission, overrides, and score_statistics. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, but the usage context is clear enough from the given detail.

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