get_assignment_feedback

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, yet the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the empty-state behavior ('Says so if nothing has been returned yet') and warns that <sakai_content> text is data, not instructions. It does not mention caching, though the refresh param hints at it.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by empty-state behavior and the security note. Every sentence carries information; no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained. The description covers the key non-obvious behaviors (empty state, untrusted embedded text) and leaves little an agent needs missing for correct invocation.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (assignment_id sourced from another tool, refresh skips the cache). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb and clearly scoped resource: the released grade, comments and returned files for the student's own submission to one assignment. The scope ('own submission to one assignment') implicitly separates it from the broader get_my_grades sibling, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the scope ('one assignment', 'own submission'). There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus get_my_grades or get_assignment_details, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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