List Coursework (Assignments)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by outlining exactly what is returned, including materials, due dates, points, and topic associations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then follows a clean Args/Returns structure. Every sentence carries useful information, with no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 there is no output schema, the Returns section does a good job enumerating the important fields. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying how response_format changes the output or by noting edge cases, but the core calling context is adequately covered.

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 75%, and the description restates all four parameters with brief meanings. It adds some value for the 'limit' parameter (which the schema lacks a description for) and clarifies 'topic_id' as a restriction, but it does not go deeper with examples or parameter relationships.

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 ('coursework (assignments, questions)') scoped to a course, and enumerates the key returned attributes. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like classroom_list_materials or classroom_list_submissions, which could overlap in an agent's mind.

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 intended use is implied: use this to list assignments/questions in a course, optionally filtered by topic. But there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for materials-only or submission-only needs.

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