Get Assignment Files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool reads and 'Returns the text itself,' implying a read-only operation rather than a download. It does not mention auth requirements or unsupported file type edge cases, but core behavior is transparent enough for safe invocation.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: resource identification, call patterns, use cases, return behavior, and the sibling alternative are all covered in three compact sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description still covers the main invocation modes, the output nature, the supported file formats via schema, and the key sibling alternative. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly without further investigation.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful workflow semantics: 'Call it with just courseId to see which assignments have attachments, then with folderId and fileId to read one.' This clarifies parameter relationships beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 opens with a concrete action and resource: 'Read the files an instructor attached to an assignment,' and names likely file types (PDF, workbook, rubric). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling download_file by contrasting reading versus saving, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions: 'when the user asks what an assignment requires, what the instructions say, or to summarize a handout.' It also names the alternative: 'Use download_file instead when the user wants the file saved to disk.' It even prescribes a two-step call pattern, which removes ambiguity.

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