list_gradeable_students

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only list operation and adds a usage hint, but does not disclose details like whether only students with submissions are returned, pagination, or any permissions. For a list tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The second sentence directly helps the agent use the output, with no redundant or vague filler.

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?

Given the simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: it names the assignment, mentions the returned IDs, and links to grading tools. It lacks details on returned student fields or inclusion criteria, but these are not critical for the minimal use case.

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 already provides descriptions for both course_id and assignment_id with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but the phrase 'for a specific assignment' reinforces the assignment_id purpose. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('List students'), a clear resource ('who can be graded for a specific assignment'), and distinguishes from siblings like list_students by focusing on gradeable status. It also explicitly mentions the assignment context, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides a clear use case by saying 'Use the returned IDs as student_id in grade_submission or grade_with_rubric', which indicates when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like list_submissions or list_students, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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