list_assignment_overrides

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: it returns overrides targeting specific groups and mentions the 422 error scenario (relevant for creation, but provides system behavior insight). No contradictions. The addition of return target types adds value beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences. The first sentence lists the primary function; the second adds a concrete use case and important error context. No extraneous words. It earns every sentence.

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 2 parameters and annotations covering safety, the description provides adequate information: what it returns and why to use it. It doesn't explain output format or pagination, but these are reasonable gaps for a straightforward tool. The auditing use case adds completeness.

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% with descriptions for both 'course_id' and 'assignment_id'. The description does not add new parameter-level details; it only restates that the tool operates on a specific assignment in a course. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'due-date / availability overrides', and the scope 'for a specific assignment in a course'. It specifies what types of overrides are returned (individual students, sections, groups). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_assignment_override.

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 explicitly provides a use case: 'Useful for auditing before creating a new override — Canvas returns a 422 if a student-set override already exists...' This tells the agent when to use this tool (before creation) and implies when not to use it (avoid 422 errors). It gives clear context for decision-making.

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