Assignment details

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/open-world profile, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are capped at 5 at a time, and attached files come back with the key stripped from the link so they are ready for get_file. It does not say how to retrieve the remaining assignments beyond the 5-item cap or what happens when the name filter matches nothing.

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?

Front-loaded with the user question it answers, then the return contents, then the inputs. Mostly economical, though the closing example question partly duplicates the opening framing and the assignment_name wording repeats the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: due date, instructions, file names and keyless links, plus the 5-item cap. Gaps remain around ordering of results when no name is given and empty-match behavior, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates the same facts (course_id from get_my_courses, assignment_name as a name fragment) without adding new syntax, matching rules, or behavior for ambiguous matches. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: it returns due date, instructions and attached files for assignments in one course, up to 5 at a time. The framing question 'what does assignment X require?' plus the explicit return fields make it clearly distinct from list-style siblings like get_assignments, and it names get_file and get_my_courses as related tools.

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?

Gives concrete entry conditions: course_id must come from get_my_courses, and assignment_name (a name fragment) narrows to one assignment. It also shows a worked example query. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it, e.g. 'use get_assignments instead if you only need the list of assignments'.

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