git-asmt-page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It reveals that the tool delegates to git_page, is a child of git-asmt, and that it must fill an 'asmt dict' with detailed fields. It also discloses the 'Canvas side ONLY' constraint, though it doesn't mention side effects or permissions. Overall, it provides more behavioral context than typical descriptions.

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, dense sentence that packs in purpose, delegation, fields, usage, and constraints. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses punctuation to structure ideas. It could be slightly more concise, but each piece adds relevant context, so it earns a strong score.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description covers the what, how, and constraints. It explains the workflow (fill dict, call git_page), language-agnostic behavior, and the Canvas-only scope. Some internal references (e.g., 'L1', 'L3 course wrapper') are cryptic without deeper system knowledge, but for a tool in this ecosystem it is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning about the internal 'asmt dict' and the call to git_page(course_slug, asmt), but since there are no actual parameters to document, it cannot go higher. The schema coverage is 100% by virtue of having no parameters.

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's function: 'build the Canvas ASSIGNMENT PAGE for a git coding assignment via the global git_page'. It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Canvas side ONLY' and referencing its parent 'git-asmt', setting it apart from the repo-side tool.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use to make/renew any git-assignment Canvas page', which gives a clear use case. It also indicates that field selection comes from the L3 course wrapper's curriculum, and clarifies this is for the Canvas side only, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it.

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