ilias_list_assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a 'Show all' listing and what data classes it surfaces, but says nothing about pagination, failure modes, or what access/permissions are required for the exercise object.

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 compact fragment with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of being telegraphic, but nothing is wasted.

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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for an open-world listing tool with one required, entirely undocumented parameter, the definition leaves a real gap an agent must guess at before it can call the tool.

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 0% for the single required parameter 'target', so the schema supplies no meaning at all. The description never explains what 'target' refers to (exercise object ID, URL, alias?) or how to obtain it, leaving the only required input completely undefined.

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 resource (assignments of an exercise object) and enumerates the returned facets (deadlines, start, submission status, files), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like ilias_list_items or ilias_list_courses. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase and does not name an alternative tool, but the operation 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling list tools. The parenthetical "('Show all' view)" hints at a view mode but never explains how it compares to other views or tools.

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