list_assignments

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It usefully discloses the timezone semantics of due dates (default Asia/Shanghai) and the default scope, but says nothing about pagination, volume, or permissions; the read-only nature is only implied by "List".

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 compact clauses, front-loading the tool's action and folding the timezone and scope rules into a parenthetical. Nothing is redundant, though the parenthetical mixes two unrelated facts (timezone and default scope).

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?

With one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient: scope, default behavior, and timezone are all covered. Only sibling differentiation and filtering granularity are absent.

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 0%, so the description does the work for the single parameter by explaining that omitting courseids widens scope to all enrolled courses. It does not clarify that courseids is an array of integers or whether invalid/unenrolled ids are tolerated.

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 and resource ("List assignments") and adds that results carry due dates. It does not differentiate from the closest sibling, upcoming_deadlines, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Gives the key usage rule for the optional filter: omit courseids to cover all enrolled courses. It offers no guidance on when to pick this over upcoming_deadlines or submission_status, which is the main selection risk among siblings.

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