list_peer_reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it lists 'all' peer reviews, implying a full list return. However, it does not disclose details like pagination, ordering, or filtering options, which would be valuable for behavioral understanding.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences followed by parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, the parameter list could be integrated more succinctly.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately identifies the two required parameters and the list operation. However, it lacks context about optional filters, result ordering, or any behavioral nuances that might affect agent decisions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by adding brief clarifications: 'course_identifier' can be a course code or Canvas ID, and 'assignment_id' is specifically a Canvas assignment ID. This adds some meaning beyond the schema titles but is minimal and does not cover all aspects like formatting or validation.

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 peer review assignments for a specific assignment, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('peer review assignments'). However, it does not differentiate from a sibling tool 'get_peer_review_assignments', which likely serves a similar purpose, limiting clarity in distinguishing between them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_peer_review_assignments' or when not to use it. It only lists required parameters, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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