lms_check_deadlines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'returns' a summary, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm that there are no side effects or mention any permissions or constraints. For a zero-parameter query tool, this is adequate but lacks explicit reassurance about its read-only nature.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Return') and immediately specifies the scope. There is no redundant wording or extraneous detail. It is concise and well-structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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 tool with no parameters and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It specifies the exact output (deadline summary) and the scope (all active assignments across all enrolled courses). However, it does not elaborate on the summary's format or content (e.g., whether it includes due dates, course names, or sorting), which might be relevant depending on the output schema. Given that an output schema exists, this gap is minor.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the parameter surface (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information because none exists. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools, and the description does not need to elaborate further.

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's function: returning a deadline summary for all active assignments across all enrolled courses. The verb 'Return' and resource 'deadline summary' are specific, and the scope is unambiguous. This distinguishes it from siblings like lms_list_assignments (which likely lists assignments without a summary) and lms_get_assignment_detail (which focuses on one assignment).

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need a deadline summary), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. There is no contrast with sibling tools like lms_list_assignments or lms_list_courses. The usage context is implied rather than stated, leaving the agent to infer based on the purpose.

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