Get Assignment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned content in detail (dates, submission state, grades, files), which implies a read-only fetch, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or missing-assignment handling. Some value added, key behavioral traits absent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field enumeration is dense but informative. Slightly list-like, and partly overlaps what the existing output schema already conveys, but it earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the safety profile is trivial for a read. The remaining gap is parameter semantics at 0% schema coverage with no description-side compensation, leaving the definition just short of complete for a two-required-param 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 0% and both class_id and assignment_id are undocumented in the schema. The description never references either identifier, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap even though 'one assignment' hints at needing an assignment key.

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 and resource ('Full detail for one assignment') and its singular scope implicitly separates it from the sibling get_assignments. The enumerated fields (dates, submission state, grade fields, submissions) make the retrieval target concrete, so an agent can pick it without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one assignment' signals a single-record lookup versus the list-oriented get_assignments, but the description never says when to prefer it, what prerequisites exist, or names the alternative. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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