list_workshops

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'read-only coverage only' largely restates that. The genuinely additive part is disclosing that no peer-assessment submission or grading path exists on this server, which prevents a misdirected follow-up call. It says nothing about pagination or per-course result shape, but the presence of an output schema lowers the burden.

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 action and scope, followed by the scope caveat. Nothing is padded, though the caveat sentence leans slightly long relative to the simplicity of the 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the key limitation. Return fields need not be explained since the output schema handles that; only pagination or per-course grouping behavior is left unstated.

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 100% and the single course_ids parameter is documented in the schema itself as an array of ids. The description's 'across one or more courses' corroborates the plural scope but adds no format, limit, or validity details beyond that baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Workshop (peer assessment) activities') plus scope ('across one or more courses'), and the parenthetical disambiguates workshop from other activity types in the sibling list such as list_assignments or list_forums. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it differs from, but no other workshop-listing tool exists, so selection is unambiguous.

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 gives a clear exclusion ('Submitting or assessing work is not supported by this server'), which tells the agent not to hunt for a workshop-submission or grading tool. There is no explicit when-to-use framing relative to alternatives, but the scope it carves out is exactly the guidance an agent needs here.

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