list_rubrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List rubrics available in a course,' which implies a read-only operation but doesn't explicitly state that, nor does it mention any error conditions, pagination, or ordering. It lacks sufficient transparency for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource. For a simple list tool, this level of conciseness is acceptable, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 tool has only one parameter and is a straightforward list operation, but the description omits details about the return value, potential errors, pagination, or what 'available' means (e.g., published rubrics). Given that an output schema exists but is not described, the description still leaves uncertainty about expected behavior.

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 description does not explicitly describe the 'course_identifier' parameter; it only says 'in a course,' which hints at the parameter's role but doesn't explain its format or required values. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it provides only a weak hint.

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) and resource (rubrics) with a scope ('in a course'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rubric (single rubric) and create_rubric. However, it is minimal and doesn't specify nuances like whether it lists all rubrics or only published ones.

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 mention of when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about typical use cases. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when to call it.

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