get_assignment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the response includes the user's submission and the description field is HTML containing embedded file links, rubric criteria, and linked resources — prompting follow-up calls like get_file or fetch_file_content.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the key mutation-relevant detail (HTML description containing links) is placed immediately after the purpose statement.

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 shape needs no explanation, and the description correctly flags the submission inclusion and the HTML payload. The gap is the absence of any parameter context for a 0%-documented schema, which for a simple two-integer read tool is a minor omission rather than a blocker.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it says nothing about course_id or assignment_id. The parameter names are close to self-explanatory, but there is no statement of relationship (e.g., that assignment_id must belong to course_id) or validation behavior.

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: 'Get full detail on a single assignment including the user's submission,' which is clearly narrower than the sibling list_assignments. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_my_submission, which overlaps on the 'user's submission' aspect, so an agent must infer the split.

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: 'single assignment' suggests fetching one item after list_assignments surfaces an id, but no when-not or alternative is named. The second sentence gives guidance on how to mine the returned content, not on when to choose this tool over get_my_submission.

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