list_assignments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, response shape, or any filtering/workflow-state defaults, so an agent cannot anticipate the tool's behavior beyond the bare action.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to identifying the action, resource, and scope. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward list tool.

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?

The combination of the sentence and the fully documented schema is enough for a basic call, but the tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain return values or pagination behavior. It is minimally viable rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents course_id, order_by, and per_page. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and the resource ('assignments') scoped to a Canvas course, so an agent can tell it is a bulk-read tool rather than get_assignment or create_assignment. It falls short of a 5 because it does not explicitly scope the list (e.g., all assignments vs. filtered) or contrast with the sibling single-assignment tool.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this over get_assignment, list_submissions, or other sibling tools, nor any mention of prerequisites such as course access. The plural name and 'list' verb imply usage, but the description leaves the selection criteria to inference.

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