get_rubric

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the rubric may not exist ('when it has one') and that there is a precedence relationship with the student-visible rubric. It does not specify return values (e.g., null behavior), error conditions, or permission requirements.

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 compact—two short sentences that efficiently communicate the core purpose and an important caveat. It avoids fluff and front-loads the main point, though the first sentence is a fragment rather than a full declarative sentence.

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 two-parameter getter, the description covers the essential purpose and a key distinction, but it leaves gaps: no output schema, no explicit null behavior, and no instructions on how parameters relate to the rubric lookup. Given the sibling tools and lack of annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the architecture needs the prose to explain the parameters. The description references 'the assignment' but never mentions 'course' or 'assignment_id' explicitly, nor their formats or relationships. The parameter names themselves are straightforward, but the description adds no semantic value.

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 identifies the resource as 'the assignment's Canvas rubric object' and notes the conditional 'when it has one,' which implies retrieval. It distinguishes this from the student-shown rubric, clarifying scope. However, it lacks an explicit action verb, relying on the tool name.

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 second sentence provides a usage guideline: the student-shown rubric 'outranks this' and the assignment page carries its own table, implying this tool is for the stored rubric, not the displayed one. This gives some contextual guidance but does not explicitly name an alternative tool or say definitively when to use this vs. other rubric-related tools.

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