moodle_assignments

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: results are sorted by due date, and status values are enumerated (new/draft/submitted/nosubmission) along with the conditional inclusion of grades. It says nothing about pagination or result volume, which matters for an open-world list tool.

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?

A single, dense sentence with no filler, and the scope/sort/status details are ordered from most to least important. It is efficient, though the trailing 'when include_status is true' clause could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description reasonably sketches the returned fields (due date, status, grade), which is helpful. However, with three parameters at 0% schema coverage, leaving only_open undefined means an agent cannot know whether omitting it returns closed assignments too — a meaningful gap for a discovery tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does explain include_status (adds submission status and grade when true) and partially explains course_ids ('or the given ones'), but only_open goes entirely unmentioned even though it narrows the result set implied by 'All assignments'.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (list assignments) with scope (current courses or explicitly given course_ids) and ordering (by due date). The 'All assignments' framing implicitly separates it from the singular moodle_assignment sibling, but no sibling is named outright, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description establishes the scope ('current courses (or the given ones)') from which an agent can infer this is the list-across-courses call versus the single-item sibling. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no naming of alternatives such as moodle_assignment or moodle_deadlines.

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