Get Assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: course_id causes submission_types to be included, LTI (external_tool) assignments cannot be submitted via the API, and the days_ahead cap is lifted for a specified course. These are non-obvious traits an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the network tag and core operation lead, followed by the conditional caveats. Efficient, though the parenthetical LTI note packs multiple concerns into one clause.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the key parameter interactions; only minor gaps remain (behavior when course_id is omitted, pagination/result-size handling).

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining cross-parameter interaction: course_id pulls in submission_types and removes the days_ahead upper bound. That interaction is not derivable from the per-parameter schema text alone.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('과제 및 퀴즈 목록을 가져옵니다' – fetch assignment and quiz list), which is clearly a listing operation distinct from the sibling eclass_get_assignment_detail. It does not explicitly name the sibling, so it stops short of a top-tier differentiation score.

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?

Usage is only implied through condition-dependent behavior (specifying course_id changes the result shape). There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over eclass_get_assignment_detail, and no exclusions are given.

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