lms_list_assignments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that only active assignments are returned and that course_id is an optional filter, which is useful. However, it does not define 'active', mention pagination, ordering, authentication, or other behavioral traits an agent might need to anticipate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the optional filter behavior is stated immediately after the primary purpose.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core invocation need. It could be more complete with pagination or a note on the 'active' definition, but nothing essential to selecting or calling the tool is missing.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that course_id is an optional filter ('optionally filtered by specific course_id'), which the schema does not convey. However, it does not describe where the course_id comes from, value expectations, or behavior when omitted, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Return all active assignments') and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like lms_get_assignment_detail by emphasizing 'all active' rather than a single detail. The optional course_id filter adds useful scope without ambiguity.

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 this is the tool for listing active assignments and optionally narrowing by course, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over siblings such as lms_get_assignment_detail or lms_check_deadlines. There is clear context, but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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