Get Assignment Rubric

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: the student's own graded outcome is returned only 'once it has been released,' which signals a conditional/latency facet an agent would otherwise miss. It does not mention permission requirements or behavior when no rubric is attached, but for a read-only fetch the disclosure is solid.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by when to use it. Every clause adds information (return shape, release gating, trigger questions) with no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the return payload and the conditional outcome field. It is complete for a two-parameter read tool, though it omits edge cases such as an assignment with no rubric attached and does not address the adjacent get_rubrics_for_object 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 description coverage is 100%, so both courseId and assignmentId are already documented in the schema (including the pointer to get_assignments). The description only restates the 'dropbox assignment' scoping already implied by the schema, adding no new format or constraint detail, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and a precise resource ('full grading rubric for a dropbox assignment'), and enumerates the returned structure (criteria groups, criteria, achievement levels, points, descriptions, plus the student's released outcome). It scopes itself with 'dropbox assignment,' which implicitly separates it from the generic get_rubrics_for_object sibling, but never names that alternative 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?

The second sentence gives concrete trigger scenarios: questions about what a rubric wants, how an assignment will be graded, or why a particular criterion score was received. That is clear when-to-use guidance, but it offers no exclusions or routing to the sibling get_rubrics_for_object for non-assignment or generic rubric lookups.

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