schoology_get_assignments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful output behavior — that each assignment carries submitted/not submitted/unknown status, attachments, and cross-referenced StudentVUE scores — which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists. It is silent on authentication requirements, pagination, and whether an unfiltered call returns all sections, so it is only partially transparent.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then packs the payload details. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 no output schema, the description's summary of returned fields compensates reasonably well, and there are no annotations to duplicate. But for a tool that takes a sectionId it says nothing about that parameter or about access requirements, so an agent could still misinvoke it.

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 single parameter sectionId is not mentioned anywhere in the description and the schema has 0% description coverage and no enum, so the agent learns nothing about its format, whether it is optional, or what omitting it does. The one sentence that exists about output adds no parameter meaning.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Schoology assignments') and enumerates the payload fields (submission status, attachments, matched StudentVUE scores), which is far more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling studentvue_get_assignments, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., must be logged in), and no mention of the sibling studentvue_get_assignments as the alternative source for assignment data. The agent gets no routing help beyond the tool name itself.

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