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 reads `assignment.unitsAssigned` directly, returns an empty array for no assignments, and is clearly a read-only operation. It could mention if there are any prerequisites, but overall it is 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?

The description is succinct, using a clear structure with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary information.

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 simple listing tool with one parameter and a documented return format, the description is complete. It explains the output structure, empty array behavior, and even mentions the internal field read. The output schema exists to provide further details, but the description suffices on its own.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It describes the task_id parameter as 'uniqueID of the task', which provides clarity beyond the schema that only defines it as a string. This compensates well for the schema gap.

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 explicitly states it lists resource assignments on a task, using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like assign_resource and unassign_resource by focusing on read-only listing.

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 implies that the tool is for viewing assignments on a given task. Although it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, the context from sibling tools and the task_id parameter make the usage clear.

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