List Assignment Groups

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

The description discloses that include=assignments nests assignments under groupsACHé, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, with readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, it adds no information about pagination, response size, or how multiple includes compose, so it stays at the baseline.

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 short sentences, with the core purpose in the first phrase and the most important parameter guidance directly after. Zero filler.

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 key behavior (list groups, optionally with nested assignments and extra data) is covered, and sibling distinctions are implicitly handled. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or that other includes can significantly increase response size, which would help an agent anticipate incomplete results. Still strong for a read-only list tool.

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 already documents each parameter with clear descriptions. The prose adds value beyond the schema by explaining that include=assignments nests assignments under groups and that 'other includes add submission, overrides, etc.', which clarifies what those enum values accomplish. Not a full mapping of every include, but meaningful added semantics.

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 opens with 'List assignment groups (categories like Homework, Exams) in a course' — a specific verb, a concrete resource, and an explicit scope. It also clarifies the core grouping intent, which distinguishes this from the sibling list_assignments tool.

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 gives some usage guidance for the include parameter ('Use include=assignments to nest assignments under each group'), but it does not explain when to choose this tool over list_assignments or list_assignment_overrides, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases.

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