get_assignment_feedback

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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond them: it explains what is returned (grade, comments, files), the 'nothing returned yet' state, and critically, security guidance to treat <sakai_content> as information not instructions. Cache behavior is only in the schema, not the description.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second adds the empty-state caveat and prompt-injection safety note. No wasted words.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. The description covers scope, empty state, and content-trust guidance; only cache/refresh semantics and permission requirements are absent, which are minor for a read-only feedback 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 100% and already documents both assignment_id and refresh. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (released grade, comments, returned files) scoped to the student's own submission of one assignment. Clearly distinguished from siblings like get_assignment_details (metadata) and get_my_grades (course grades) by focusing on feedback for a single submission.

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?

Implies usage is for checking feedback on one's own submission, and notes it reports when nothing has been returned. No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or prerequisites, but the single-assignment scope is clear.

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