read_assignment_instructions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the exact student-facing assignment and emphasizes its authoritative role for grading. It does not discuss errors or side effects, but the behavioral context provided is meaningful.

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, with two sentences that deliver the core purpose and usage context without redundancy.

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 straightforward read tool, the description sufficiently covers what is returned and when to use it. It lacks return format details and parameter explanation, but overall it provides enough guidance for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema offers no descriptions for 'course' or 'code', and the description does not clarify their meaning or format. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but does not.

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 identifies that this tool retrieves the assignment exactly as the student saw it, listing the included components (description, rubric, due date, attachments). This emphasis on the student-facing view distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_assignment or get_rubric.

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 explicitly states that grading should be based on the student's view and that this tool should be used before any scoring. This provides a clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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