Get Assignment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by disclosing the exact scope of the response (instructions, dates, points, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what 'full' means.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get one assignment in full') and lists the key contents without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (two simple parameters) and the presence of an output schema that describes the return structure, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool returns, and annotations cover the safety and idempotency aspects, leaving no significant gaps.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (course_id and assignment_id) with simple descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or usage context for the parameters, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('one assignment in full') with an enumerated list of contents (instructions, due/lock dates, points, submission types, rubric, user's submission state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_assignments, which lists assignments rather than fetching a single one in detail.

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 description implies this tool is for retrieving a single assignment's full details when you have a specific course_id and assignment_id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like list_assignments or my_submission. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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