List Assignment Overrides

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does so by disclosing the return content (overrides for students/sections/groups) and the practical implication of the 422 error when duplicates exist. This is useful behavioral context that isn't derivable from the annotation alone.

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 three sentences, all information-dense and free of redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, then the return scope, then the practical use case. No filler or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple list tool with a readOnlyHint and only two fully-specified parameters, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, the targeting scope, and a key use case. It doesn't mention pagination or response format, but given the lack of an output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 input schema describes both parameters (course_id, assignment_id) with full 100% coverage, including types and descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without needing to compensate.

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 action (list), the resource (due-date/availability overrides), and the scope (specific assignment in a course). It also specifies the target types (individual students, sections, or groups), which distinguishes it from other tools that list assignments or overrides at a course level.

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 a clear use case: auditing before creating a new override. It explicitly mentions the Canvas 422 error condition that makes this pre-flight check valuable. While it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, the read-only intent is clear from context and the sibling list includes create_assignment_override, making the distinction obvious.

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