get_assignment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety-transparency burden. It communicates a read-style operation through 'GET' and clarifies parameter placement, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, failure/404 behavior, or the fact that assignmentId is effectively required despite `path_params` being declared optional in the schema.

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?

Two sentences carry the endpoint and all essential parameter-placement rules with no filler. The key routing guidance is front-loaded after the one-line purpose, making it fast for an agent to parse.

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?

This is a simple single-resource GET with an output schema to describe the return shape, so the description covers the main gaps: exact endpoint, path vs query routing, and supported query categories. It could be more complete by explicitly marking `assignmentId` as required and noting any auth prerequisites, but those are minor for this simple tool.

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 0% and all three parameters are untyped generic containers, so the description must do the work. It meaningfully says to place route IDs in `path_params` and filtering, pagination, sorting, and include values in `query`, which is exactly the disambiguation an agent needs. It leaves `body` unmentioned, but for a GET the body is likely irrelevant.

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 names a concrete operation ('Get assignment details') and gives the exact endpoint `GET /assignments/{assignmentId}`, which clearly identifies the resource and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools such as `list_assignments` and `get_assignment_learner_activity` by pointing at the single assignment resource rather than a collection or sub-entity.

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 intended use is implied by the endpoint and name: call it when you need details for one assignment. However, it never says when *not* to use it or names an alternative (e.g., `list_assignments` for collections), so the usage guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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