list-rubric-assessments

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—such as pagination behavior, whether all assessments are returned at once, how the 'anonymous' flag affects results, or any access requirements. The description does not disclose anything about side effects or return characteristics, so it adds little over the annotation.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

This is a simple list tool with no output schema. The description and schema collectively cover the essential inputs and read-only nature, but the response format is unspecified. Since there is no output schema, the absence of any mention of return structure or pagination leaves a gap. The description is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 100% coverage, with each parameter described (courseId, assignmentId, and anonymous with default and purpose). The description does not add further meaning to these parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter semantics.

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 'List all rubric assessments for an assignment' uses a specific verb ('list') with a clear resource ('rubric assessments') and scope ('for an assignment'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-rubrics (which lists rubrics themselves) and list-assignment-submissions (which lists submissions). The word 'all' signals the full set, matching the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose this over list-rubrics or list-assignment-submissions, nor does it state any excluded scenarios. The only context is the assignment scope, which is already evident from the parameters.

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