list_homeworks

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the result set (name, group flag, submitted/graded counts, deadline, canDelete), but says nothing about read-only nature, whether unpublished or deleted items are included, ordering, or pagination limits.

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 scopes the tool first (指定課程) and then lists the fields. The field enumeration is long but each item is informative; no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, listing the returned fields is the highest-value content and it is present, including the operationally important canDelete flag. Minor gaps remain around ordering, volume, and filtering behavior for a course's homeworks.

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% and the single courseId parameter is already documented with an example in the schema. The description's '指定課程' adds no syntax or constraint beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a concrete verb-resource pair (取得作業清單) scoped to a specified course (指定課程), and enumerates the returned fields. This naturally contrasts with the singular get_homework_detail or the submission-oriented list_homework_submissions, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'use this when you need the homework list of one course'. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion against get_homework_detail or list_unsubmitted_students, and no stated prerequisites.

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