list_assignments

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, so the description's job is additive — and it delivers two real traits: instructions are returned conditionally, only for courses with AI permission, and the data is flagged as Purdue Sensitive. It does not mention pagination or behavior when the course_id is not one the student is enrolled in.

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, front-loaded with what is returned, with no filler. The trailing 'Purdue Sensitive data' fragment is terse to the point of being cryptic but is not wasted space.

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 exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary and the definition is largely sufficient for a one-parameter read tool. However, the unexplained 'Purdue Sensitive data' marker and the unstated validity constraint on course_id leave an agent without guidance on handling restricted or invalid inputs.

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?

The single course_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so only weakly, implying via 'one of the student's courses' that the ID must be a course the student belongs to, but never states the constraint explicitly or says how to obtain a valid ID.

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 the resource (assignment folders) and enumerates the returned fields (names, due dates, points), scoped to 'one of the student's courses'. The listing verb is implicit rather than explicit, and differentiation from siblings like upcoming_due_dates is only inferable from the course scoping.

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 course-scoped framing implies when this is appropriate versus the cross-course upcoming_due_dates or assignment_submission_status, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given. Usage must be inferred rather than read.

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