list_peer_reviews

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, indicating a safe read operation. The description does not add further behavioral context beyond the listing action. No contradictions, but also no additional disclosure of traits like pagination or rate limits.

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, concise sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized for quick comprehension.

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 tool is a straightforward list operation with no output schema. While the description is adequate, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., fields included) or pagination behavior. Given the complexity of a list tool, the description is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (course_id and assignment_id). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for a well-documented schema.

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 the resource 'peer reviews' with a specific context of 'for an assignment in a course.' It effectively communicates the tool's purpose, though it could explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_submission_peer_reviews by specifying the scope (all peer reviews for the assignment vs. for a specific submission).

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 implies usage when you need to see all peer reviews for an assignment, but it does not provide guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like get_submission_peer_reviews for individual submissions. There is no explicit when/when-not or comparison with siblings.

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