check_assignment_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals the categories of data returned, but says nothing about authentication (notable given siblings like interactive_login and set_session_cookie), rate limits, or whether the caller must be the student or a teacher. For a zero-annotation tool this is a real gap.

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 efficient sentence with the verb and the three checked aspects front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity leaves the transparency gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

With one simple parameter and no output schema, the description minimally suffices to know what the tool returns conceptually. But with no annotations, it omits auth requirements and caller-role expectations that an agent would need before calling it.

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%, so the single url parameter and its Moodle format example are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 verb (Check) and enumerates the resources inspected: submission status, grading status, and feedback for a specific assignment. This is far more concrete than a tautology and clearly distinct from siblings like list_modules or get_deadlines. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The use case can be inferred from the purpose, but nothing in the text guides tool selection among the nine siblings.

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