list_assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful non-schema behavior: that responses carry a nextPage cursor to page through all work. It does not, however, describe response shape, error behavior 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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded before the pagination note, with no redundant or filler text. Every clause carries information.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description conveys the returned content and the pagination mechanism, which is enough for an agent to call it. Error conditions and the exact meaning of the page parameter remain unaddressed.

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% for two parameters. 'For a course' loosely implies courseId, but the 'page' parameter is never explained in the description, and the 'nextPage' mention refers to the response rather than the request param. The description fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (assignments) plus the content returned: deadlines, availability and submission state, scoped to a course. It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from conceptually adjacent siblings like get_course_work_status or get_assignment_context.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The only implicit signal is 'for a course', which hints at the courseId requirement but says nothing about choosing this over get_course_work_status.

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