list_assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description aligns with a read-only listing operation and adds detail about optional includes and filters. No contradiction; the description adds useful context beyond 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: first defines the primary purpose, second lists parameter usage. Front-loaded, no redundant words, and efficiently communicates key information.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main parameters. It lacks details on pagination, default ordering, or return structure. However, for a list tool with openWorldHint, it is reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes key parameters like `include` and `bucket` but does not add new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It groups them for readability but does not enrich 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'assignments in a course'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_assignment (single assignment) and create/delete/update_assignment. The mention of optional include and filter parameters adds specificity.

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 tells how to use `include`, `bucket`, and other filters to refine results. It provides clear context for parameter usage but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for a single assignment, use get_assignment).

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