Get weighted grade breakdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail: 'Drop rules are reported but not pre-applied.' This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand a subtle aspect of the returned data. No contradictions 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 two sentences with zero waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the important caveat about drop rules is concisely stated. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what is contained in the response (weights, submissions, weighted breakdown) and the key exception (drop rules not pre-applied). This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and integrate it appropriately.

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 100% for the single parameter (courseId), which is described as 'Canvas course id.' The description does not add parameter-specific context, but since the schema is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (get), the resource (assignment groups), and the specific purpose (weighted breakdown behind a course grade). It distinguishes itself from siblings like canvas_get_course_grade (which likely returns a single grade) and canvas_get_grades (which might return actual grades). The phrase 'with their weights and your submissions' precisely defines the return contents.

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 provides clear context: it shows the weighted breakdown behind a course grade, implying this tool is used when understanding grade composition is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is evident enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage from the description.

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