canvas_list_assignments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds value by mentioning 'with the user's submission inline' and 'standard Canvas bucket filter', which give some context about the response content and parameter behavior. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or the exact format of inline submissions. Given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core action and key qualifier. The second clause adds the bucket filter without redundancy. Every word contributes, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 a readOnlyHint annotation and clear required parameter, the description is largely complete. It captures the purpose, the inclusion of submission inline, and the optional filter. Since there is no output schema, it does not need to detail return values, but the brief mention of 'inline' is a helpful hint. The lack of usage guidance slightly reduces completeness, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 50%, with only 'bucket' having a schema description. The description reinforces 'bucket' as a standard Canvas filter, adding slight clarification, but provides no additional meaning for 'courseId'. The parameter names are self-explanatory, yet the description does little to compensate for the missing schema description on courseId or to explain how the bucket filter interacts with the results. This is a middle-ground score.

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 tool 'List a course's assignments' with the specific qualifier '(with the user's submission inline)', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like canvas_list_missing_submissions. The verb 'List' and resource 'assignments' are precise, and the optional bucket filter is mentioned, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like canvas_list_missing_submissions or canvas_list_recent_submissions. It only mentions the bucket filter feature, but does not state context such as 'use when you need assignment details with the user's submission' or exclude other scenarios. This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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