list_assignments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention the return format ('JSON array of assignments with submission and grade counts'), which is helpful, but it omits details about read-only safety, required permissions, pagination, sorting, or potential errors.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, followed by an Args section and a Returns line. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 context (one required integer parameter, output schema present), the description is reasonably complete. It states the return type and contents, and the output schema covers detailed field structure. The main gap is lack of usage guidance, but that is addressed in the usage_guidelines dimension.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter, and the description adds only 'The Moodle course ID' to the property name 'course_id'. This provides minimal context (identifying the platform) but does not elaborate on how to obtain the ID or any format/validation constraints, only partially compensating 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 clearly states the tool 'List assignments' with the additional scope of 'submission stats', making the core purpose specific. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_assignment_submissions or list_activities, but the verb+resource+extra detail is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_assignment_submissions or list_activities. It only gives a parameter definition and return type, with no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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