list_coursework

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema: results default to PUBLISHED-only unless states is widened. It omits pagination behavior, ordering, and auth requirements, which is a notable gap for a list endpoint with no annotations.

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 purpose line is front-loaded and the three argument notes are terse and each earn their place. The Args block formatting is slightly verbose for only three parameters, 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It identifies the returned item types, which partly covers the return shape, but gives no pagination, ordering, or truncation semantics for a list tool — enough to call it, not enough to use it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: course_id is sourced ('from list_courses'), states is explained with its default and permissible values, and limit is described as a maximum item count. It lacks format details (e.g., whether states combines as OR, limit bounds), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (coursework) and even enumerates what counts as coursework (assignments, quizzes, questions, materials), scoped 'for a course'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_courses, though the course_id reference to list_courses makes the hierarchy inferable.

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 implied: call this to enumerate coursework within a course. The states note ('Defaults to ["PUBLISHED"]; can include "DRAFT" or "DELETED"') gives useful filtering context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative or exclusion guidance.

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