List Peer Reviews

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the assignment-level scope but does not disclose behavior like pagination, ordering, permission requirements, or whether reviews for both active and inactive students are included.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. The core scope ('all peer reviews for an assignment in a course') is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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, read-only, two-parameter listing tool, the description is mostly sufficient to invoke correctly. However, the absence of an output schema means the description could usefully mention what a peer review record contains or whether pagination is expected.

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%: both course_id and assignment_id are already described as Canvas IDs. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that these identify the course and assignment.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource and scope: peer reviews for an assignment in a course. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_submission_peer_reviews, which target a submission context rather than an assignment-level listing.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_submission_peer_reviews, create_peer_review, or delete_peer_review. The description gives a clear read context but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when a sibling would be preferable.

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