list_assignments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns summary info and includes regular assignments, graded discussions, and New Quizzes as internally-all-the-same assignments, which is valuable nuance. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics or mention pagination, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Each sentence provides distinct information: purpose, scope detail, and return summary plus alternative. There is no redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 a well-described schema, the description covers inclusion criteria, return summary, and points to get_assignment for more detail. It lacks explicit mention of default ordering or pagination, but these are either in the schema or not critical for a list operation, making it nearly complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, each with its own field description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond 'in a course' which simply maps to course_id. Since the schema already handles parameter meanings, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists assignments in a course with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from related sibling tools by noting it includes graded discussions and New Quizzes, and by directing users to get_assignment for full details.

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 explicitly says 'Use get_assignment for full details,' which is an alternative and a when-not-to-use directive. This provides clear guidance on when to prefer this tool versus get_assignment, satisfying the criterion for explicit alternatives.

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