list-assignments

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description aligns by saying 'Get a list'. The description adds context by mentioning that submission status for students is included, but it doesn't disclose any further behavior such as pagination, default anonymization, or output structure, so it doesn't go beyond the annotation significantly.

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 immediately states the action and resource, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 read-only list tool with detailed schema and annotations, the description covers the core functionality well. It mentions the scope (all assignments in a course) and the key output feature (submission status). However, it doesn't mention optional filtering (studentId, includeSubmissionHistory) or the default anonymization behavior, but those are covered in the schema, so the description provides sufficient context.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself doesn't add any information about parameters; the schema already documents courseId, anonymous, studentId, and includeSubmissionHistory with clear descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get a list' with the resource 'assignments' and scopes it to 'in a course', while specifying the additional value of 'submission status for students'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get-assignment (single assignment) and list-assignment-submissions (submissions only).

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: when you need all assignments in a course with student submission status, use this tool. It provides clear context (course, assignments, submission status) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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