get_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 behavioral traits. It mentions the tool is read-only (get) and returns data from the timeline, but it does not disclose any details about response format, pagination, or potential variations in behavior. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose without any extraneous content. It is efficiently structured and covers the core action.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, but the description does not account for the subdomain parameter or any contextual details like date filters. It is complete for the basic action but missing key context for effective use, especially given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 one parameter 'subdomain' with a default of null, and description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the purpose of the 'subdomain' parameter. However, since the tool is part of a context that likely involves subdomains (as seen in sibling tools like login), the agent can infer its meaning. The lack of explicit explanation sets a baseline of 3, as the description does not add beyond the schema.

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 that the tool retrieves all assignments including homework, tests, exams, and projects from the timeline, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_homework' by mentioning a broader scope, although it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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 usage: it is for getting assignments from the timeline)Skip. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the closely related 'get_homework' tool, nor does it specify any conditions or alternatives. This is a minimal acceptable level for a simple retrieval tool.

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