gradescope_list_assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the list of returned fields (name, submission status, score, release/due times), which gives context about the output but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination or ordering. With annotations in place, this meets the baseline but adds limited extra transparency.

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 ('一门 Gradescope 课的作业表') and then lists the returned fields and the source for course_id. Every clause adds value with no waste.

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 and good annotations, the description conveys the main purpose, the output fields, and the parameter source. It does not mention potential edge cases like empty lists or pagination, but these are not critical for this tool's simplicity. Overall it is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a description for course_id (Gradescope course id as numeric string). The description adds the critical instruction that course_id comes from gradescope_list_courses, which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent correctly obtain the parameter. This lifts it above the baseline.

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 lists assignments for a Gradescope course, specifying the returned fields (name, submission status, score, release/due times). It distinguishes itself from siblings like moodle_list_assignments and gradescope_list_courses by naming the Gradescope context and the resource type.

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 explicitly instructs that course_id should be obtained from gradescope_list_courses, providing a clear prerequisite for using the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the instruction on sourcing the parameter is valuable usage guidance.

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