get_peer_review_assignments

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

The description adds context that the tool returns a mapping with completion status, which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, default filters, or any limits. Annotations already indicate read-only, so the description contributes moderately but not extensively.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence stating the tool's purpose followed by a clean parameter list. Every element earns its place without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the main action and then details.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers purpose and parameters. However, it lacks usage context or guidance on when to invoke this tool relative to siblings, which is a gap considering the number of related tools.

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 compensate. It provides brief but meaningful explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Course code or Canvas ID', 'Include student names'), adding semantic value over the raw schema types. While more detail (e.g., accepted formats, defaults) could help, the current level is adequate.

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 that the tool retrieves a peer review assignment mapping showing who reviews whom with completion status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_peer_reviews (which lists reviews) and get_peer_review_comments (which gets comments), making the purpose specific and actionable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes other peer review tools, but the description does not mention scenarios where this tool is preferred, nor does it suggest any exclusions or prerequisites.

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