canvas_get_rubric

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get details'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It doesn't explain what 'details' include (e.g., criteria, ratings), potential permissions needed, or how errors are handled. For a read operation with structured parameters but no output information, more context is needed to fully understand its use.

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 parameters ('course_id', 'rubric_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these IDs are needed to fetch rubric details. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific rubric'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'canvas_list_rubrics' by specifying retrieval of a single rubric rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get' tools (e.g., 'canvas_get_assignment'), so it's not fully differentiated from all siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing course and rubric IDs), compare it to 'canvas_list_rubrics' for bulk retrieval, or specify contexts where detailed rubric data is required. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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