Inspect a homework assignment to retrieve its status and a structured brief of questions, enabling an AI model to prepare an answers map for submission.
Return homework status plus a structured brief of its questions.
The model reads the brief and returns an answers map to
uplus_answer_homework.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| course_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape partially ('homework status plus a structured brief') and hints at a read-then-write workflow, but says nothing about permissions, whether inspection has side effects, or rate limits.
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 the return behavior, with no wasted filler. The workflow note earns its place because it links to the sibling tool.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a rough sketch of what comes back but leaves the two required identifier parameters entirely unexplained. It is minimally adequate for calling the tool but not complete for a tool with fully undocumented 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%: task_id and course_id carry only bare titles. The description never mentions either parameter, so it does not compensate for the undocumented schema and an agent gets no guidance on what identifiers to supply.
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 clear verb ('Return') with a specific resource ('homework status plus a structured brief of its questions'), which is more concrete than a tautology. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling uplus_answer_homework by describing the inspect-then-answer relationship.
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 second sentence establishes the workflow context explicitly: the model reads the brief and passes an answers map to uplus_answer_homework, which tells an agent when this tool belongs in a sequence. It does not state exclusions versus uplus_list_homeworks, so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.