Get Assignment Group

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so repeating "Read-only" is redundant. However, the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by enumerating what comes back (weights, drop rules, nested assignments), which annotations do not convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and followed by safety and routing notes. Nothing is wasted and no sentence repeats another.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, that it is safe, and how to obtain the group_id. Missing only edge behavior (unknown group_id, permission scoping), which is minor here.

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 100% and both parameters already document their formats (numeric string, sourced from list_courses / list_assignment_groups). The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Get one assignment group") plus the payload it returns (weight, drop rules, assignments), which distinguishes it from the list variant and from get_assignment. The example ("Homework") makes the resource concrete.

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?

Explicitly routes to list_assignment_groups for enumeration and ID lookup, giving the agent a clear default for discovery vs. detail. It stops short of stating when-not to use this tool (e.g., when you already have all groups from the list call).

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