verify_assignment

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

The description details that the tool 'Reads the activity metadata and validates that all assignment groups have consistent time slots,' indicating read-only behavior. Given no annotations, this is transparent about its non-destructive nature.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, args, returns) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value.

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 a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return format, and context for use. It is fully adequate for effective tool selection and 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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It lists 'id_activity: Activity ID to verify,' adding context beyond the schema's title, but it is minimal and could elaborate on the source of the ID.

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 clearly states 'Verify and inspect all assignments for an activity,' using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly recommending use after create_assignment or modify_assignment.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use this after create_assignment or modify_assignment to confirm the server accepted and stored the assignment correctly.' It implies when not to use (e.g., for creation or modification), but does not provide explicit exclusions.

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