Retrieve students who have not submitted a specified homework, including student IDs and names, and optionally send them a reminder email to follow up on missing assignments.
【助教特殊功能：未交學生清查與催交】取得尚未繳交作業之學生清冊（對應未交名單 /homework/noSubmitList/{作業ID}），包含學生學號、姓名，並可選擇一鍵發送催交提醒郵件。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| homeworkId | Yes | 作業 ID（例如 70800） | |
| sendReminderEmail | No | 是否對未繳交名單發送系統催交提醒信 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait that the call can have a side effect: it may send reminder emails when sendReminderEmail is set. It also discloses the returned fields (student number, name) and endpoint mapping, though it omits permission requirements and what happens if the homework ID is invalid.
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 with no filler. The bracketed feature label is slightly redundant with the tool name but still efficiently signals the TA-specific scope.
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 two-parameter read tool with one optional mutating flag, the description covers purpose, output fields, and the email side effect; no output schema exists, so naming the returned fields is sufficient. Only edge-case or permission behavior is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented in the schema (homeworkId with an example, sendReminderEmail default false). The description only restates the optional reminder behavior, adding little beyond the schema, so 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?
States a specific verb and resource: retrieve the list of students who have not submitted homework for a given homework ID, including student ID and name. It also names the concrete backing endpoint (/homework/noSubmitList/{作業ID}), making the scope unambiguous relative to siblings such as list_homework_submissions.
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 bracketed label '助教特殊功能：未交學生清查與催交' implies a teaching-assistant cleanup/reminder scenario, and the description notes the optional one-click reminder email. However, it never says when to prefer this over list_homework_submissions, nor does it state any preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.