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. It states that results include due dates and points, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns all assignments or only published ones, whether pagination is used, or any permission requirements. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('List assignments in a course') and appends the relevant output details. Every word earns its place.

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 operation with a single parameter and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It conveys the core purpose but omits practical details like pagination, filtering options, or the distinction from similar list tools. Given the broad set of siblings and low parameter coverage, a bit more context (e.g., 'returns all assignments' or 'use for overview') would improve completeness.

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 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'in a course' implies that course_identifier refers to the course ID, adding a little semantic meaning beyond the bare parameter name. However, it does not explain the accepted formats (string or integer) or any constraints. Since the parameter is self-explanatory from its name, the slight addition is enough for a baseline of 3.

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 action (List), the resource (assignments), and the scope (in a course). It also specifies the returned content (due dates and points), which distinguishes it from the sibling get_assignment_details (which presumably returns full details for a single assignment) and other list tools. No ambiguity or tautology.

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. It does not mention that this is for a high-level overview, that more granular details are available via get_assignment_details, or any filtering criteria. An agent would have to infer from the name and context.

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