get_coursework

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool returns ('detailed information... including description, attached Drive files, YouTube links, and rubrics'), which is useful transparency. The word 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state 'no side effects' or mention permission needs. This is adequate for a simple get 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The core purpose is stated first, followed by concrete examples of what is included. Every clause adds value, and it is easy to scan.

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 simple 2-parameter get tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough: it tells the agent what the tool returns and implies the parameters are prerequisite identifiers. It does not mention error conditions or that courseWorkId might come from list_coursework, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the schema's clarity.

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 already described ('unique identifier of the course/coursework'). The description's 'specific assignment' maps to courseWorkId but adds no format, source, or additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the work.

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 a specific action ('Get detailed information') on a specific resource ('a specific assignment'), and enumerates concrete return contents (description, Drive files, YouTube links, rubrics). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_coursework (which lists many) and get_submission (which targets submissions, not assignments), so an agent can immediately tell what it does.

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 phrase 'a specific assignment' clearly implies the tool is used when you already have a courseWorkId and need details for one item, setting clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_coursework to find IDs' or 'not for submissions'), so it falls just short of full guidance.

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