Get Rubric Assessment

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

The 'Read-only' claim merely restates readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so it earns no credit. However, 'criterion by criterion, with points and comments' discloses the shape of the response, which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting what happens when no assessment exists yet.

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 tightly written sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the alternative named last. The only wasted clause is 'Read-only', which duplicates the annotations.

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 purpose, the grading context ('applied to your submission'), and the returned content. Missing edge-case behavior (no assessment yet, ungraded submissions) keeps it short of full completeness.

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%, and the schema already tells the agent where to obtain course_id and assignment_id (list_courses, list_assignments). The description adds nothing beyond that, so it sits at the baseline for fully documented 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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetch the rubric scoring applied to the user's submission, broken down per criterion with points and comments. That clearly separates it from get_rubric (the rubric definition), but it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling get_my_rubric_assessment, which an agent could easily pick instead.

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 the agent to get_rubric for the full rubric 'before you submit', giving a clear pre-submission vs post-grading split. It omits any guidance about when to prefer it over get_my_rubric_assessment, so the sibling disambiguation is only partially handled.

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