rm_list_assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile, so the description is not required to restate that. It does add useful scoping context — results span projects or respect user/project filters — which parallels the date-range scoping in the calibration HIGH example. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (default 50 per page, single page per call) or the fact that an unfiltered call returns all assignments across the whole workspace, which is a behaviorally relevant gap for an agent. No contradiction with 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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the verb and resource lead immediately, and the scoping/filter clause follows. It is efficiently sized for a list tool, though a brief structured breakdown of the two filter dimensions (dates vs. user/project) would improve scanability given six parameters.

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?

An output schema covers return values and annotations cover the read-only/non-destructive profile, but the tool still has six parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the sole carrier of parameter semantics. It omits the date-range filtering exposed by from_date/to_date and the pagination behavior exposed by page/per_page — both are needed for an agent to invoke the tool correctly (e.g., to fetch all assignments, not just the first 50). The description is not complete enough for this tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only maps two of six parameters: 'filtered by user/project' corresponds to user_id and project_id. It is silent on from_date/to_date (format and semantics), page/per_page (pagination behavior), whether user and project filters are combinable, and why the ID parameters accept both integer and string. The description adds a sliver of meaning but fails to carry the burden that the empty schema leaves on it.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('resource scheduling assignments'), and a clear scope ('across projects or filtered by user/project'). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like rm_get_assignment (single fetch) and rm_create/update/delete_assignment (mutations), but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with the related rm_get_assignment or rm_list_assignment_subtasks, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 clause 'across projects or filtered by user/project' implies the primary usage context: call this to get a cross-project listing, optionally narrowed by user or project. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, no named alternative (e.g., 'use rm_get_assignment for a single assignment'), and no statement about whether filters combine or about default listing behavior. This is implied usage, not explicit routing.

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