moodle_list_assignments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond this by specifying the returned fields (week, name, deadline, submission status, score) and the 'one page' scope, indicating a consolidated view. No contradictions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('一门课的全部作业总表') and then enumerates the key fields. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 strong annotations, the description is complete enough. It lists the output fields, making the return structure predictable without requiring an output schema. It doesn't mention pagination or ordering, but the 'one page' hint implies completeness. Minor gaps prevent a 5, but it's well-suited to the tool's 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 schema has 100% coverage with a single courseId parameter. The description adds value by explaining its origin ('from moodle_list_courses'), which helps the agent source the correct ID. This goes beyond the schema's type-only definition, justifying a score 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 it lists all assignments for a course with key fields (week, name, deadline, submission status, score), distinguishing it from sibling tools like moodle_get_assignment (singular) and moodle_get_grades (grades-only). The verb 'list' and resource 'assignments' are specific and unambiguous.

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 its usage for getting a comprehensive assignment overview in one page. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear that this is the go-to tool for a full assignment listing. Without explicit alternatives, it falls short of a 5 but earns a 4 due to clear implied context.

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