list_assignment_groups

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) by explaining the tool lists groups and supports various includes. No contradictions. It does not detail auth requirements or rate limits, but the readOnly hint covers safety.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.

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?

The description adequately explains the core functionality and key parameter usage. However, it could be more complete by noting that `course_id` is required (though obvious from schema) or detailing effects of all include values. Without an output schema, this level is sufficient.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining that `include=assignments` nests assignments and other includes add extra fields, going beyond the enum list in 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?

Clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'assignment groups' with examples ('Homework, Exams'), and the phrase 'in a course' distinguishes it from sibling tool 'list_assignments' which lists assignments directly.

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?

Provides clear context for using the `include` parameter to nest assignments and other data, but does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare to alternatives like `list_assignments`.

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