Get an assignment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying that the response includes the user's submission, a behavior not noted in annotations or schema. This contextual detail helps the agent set expectations about the returned data without contradicting 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, object, and distinguishing detail (submission inclusion and id-based retrieval) efficiently. Every word earns its place, making it easily scannable for an agent.

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 read-by-id tool with full schema coverage and safe annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the key behavioral detail (inclusion of submission). Minor gaps like error cases or response format are mitigated by the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations. An output schema is absent, but the description adequately conveys what is returned for intended use.

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 clear descriptions for both required parameters (courseId and assignmentId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the 'by id' phrasing, which is redundant with the schema. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the description provides minimal extra value, matching the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'one assignment' and adds the contextual detail '(with your submission)' and 'by id'. This clearly distinguishes it from listing tools like canvas_list_assignments and other assignment-related tools. The agent can immediately understand the exact operation and scope.

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 implies usage via 'by id', suggesting it is for retrieving a specific known assignment rather than listing all assignments. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like canvas_list_assignments or canvas_get_submission_feedback. The guidance is implicit through the id requirement but lacks explicit exclusions or naming of alternatives.

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