Get a rubric

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 that the result includes 'criteria and assessments,' which gives some insight into the return content. However, it does not disclose error handling, permission requirements, or response structure beyond that.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action ('Get one rubric') and immediately specifies the key content. No wasted words, and the most important information appears first.

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 GET tool with two well-documented parameters, the description gives a basic sense of the return payload ('criteria and assessments') but omits details like response format, potential errors, or prerequisite permissions. Given the absence of an output schema, it does not fully compensate, but it is adequate for a straightforward read operation.

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%, with both courseId and rubricId having meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional parameter nuance, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 tool retrieves one specific rubric by ID, and it specifies the resource ('rubric') and its contents ('criteria and assessments'). This distinguishes it from listing tools like canvas_list_course_rubrics and other get tools, which are about different entity types.

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 a single-rubric fetch ('one rubric'), but it does not explicitly contrast with canvas_list_course_rubrics or state when to prefer one over the other. An agent would infer that a specific rubric ID is needed, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives or conditions.

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