canvas_list_assignment_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a valuable behavioral fact (weights are attached to groups, not assignments), which is real added context. However it says nothing about permissions, pagination, or the read-only nature beyond the implicit 'List', leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then rationale, then args. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema but earns its place given 0% schema coverage. No wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the lone parameter is covered. For a simple read tool this is nearly complete; only minor behavioral detail (auth/permissions) is absent.

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 0% and the single parameter has no schema-level documentation. The description compensates by describing course_id as a 'numeric course id' and documenting the default-to-CANVAS_DEFAULT_COURSE_ID behavior, which the schema does not convey.

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 ('List assignment groups') plus the salient attribute it returns ('their gradebook weights'). The second sentence clarifies the domain distinction from sibling tools like canvas_get_gradebook and canvas_list_assignments by explaining where weights actually live.

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?

Gives a clear directive: 'Read this before reasoning about what a score is worth.' That establishes the context in which the tool is needed. It does not name explicit alternatives (e.g. canvas_get_gradebook) or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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