list-assignment-groups

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds value by stating 'all' (indicating no filtering or pagination mentioned) and clarifies the resource as 'buckets'. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the behavior is straightforward for a list tool, though it does not detail return format.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains zero filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It states what the tool does and the required context (course). No critical information is missing; the absence of return details is acceptable given the simplicity.

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 input schema is fully documented (100% coverage) with a single required parameter 'courseId' described as 'The ID of the course'. The description's phrase 'in a course' aligns with this parameter but does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool's action ('List all assignment groups'), the specific resource ('assignment groups (buckets)'), and the scope ('in a course'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list-assignments' and 'create-assignment-group', which target different resources or actions.

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 context is clear: this tool is for listing assignment groups within a course. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'assignment groups (buckets)' helps differentiate it from related listing tools like 'list-assignments'. The usage is self-evident for a simple read-only list operation.

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