List peer reviews assigned to me

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

The description explains that the tool scans the course's peer-review assignments and returns status, which aligns with the readOnlyHint=true annotation. It adds behavioral context beyond the schema (e.g., scanning behavior). However, it does not address the openWorldHint annotation, nor does it mention potential performance implications of scanning. The description is adequate but does not fully explore side effects or return structure.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two well-constructed sentences. The first sentence fronts the purpose and what the user gets (status), and the second sentence explains parameter usage. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 a simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does (find peer reviews), scope (course-wide or single assignment), and status information. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating the output format (e.g., list of peer reviews with status fields) but remains nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both course_id and assignment_id. The description adds value by contextualizing the parameters: it explains that scanning the course is the default behavior and that assignment_id allows focusing on a single assignment. This enhances the schema's bare parameter descriptions by clarifying the operational difference.

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 finds peer reviews assigned to the user and their status, using specific verbs and resources ('Find peer reviews you've been asked to complete, and their status'). It distinguishes between scanning an entire course and checking a single assignment via the assignment_id parameter, which differentiates it from siblings like canvas_list_assignments or canvas_get_assignment.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to find peer reviews you need to complete. It also specifies an alternative usage by passing assignment_id to check just one assignment instead of scanning the course. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool (e.g., against listing all assignments or checking grades), leaving the exclusion implicit.

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