list_rubrics

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, already signaling a safe read operation. The description does not add behavioral details beyond stating it lists rubrics. No contradiction, but no extra value added.

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, well-structured sentence with no extraneous words. It is perfectly concise for the information it conveys.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It could mention the return type (list of rubrics), but the core purpose is clear. Slight gap in not describing output format, but acceptable for a straightforward list operation.

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% (course_id described in schema). The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 is very clear: 'List all rubrics in a course.' It specifies the verb (list), resource (rubrics), and scope (in a course), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_rubric or get_rubric.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations. Sibling tools exist for creating, getting, or assessing rubrics, but the description does not differentiate usage contexts.

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