canvas_assignment_get

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 states the tool returns detailed assignment information, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a bulleted list of return details. There's minimal waste, though the bulleted list could be slightly more concise if integrated into the flow.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing return values. However, for a tool with 3 parameters and no behavioral annotations, it lacks completeness in areas like error handling, authentication, and distinguishing from siblings. It's adequate but has clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (course_id, assignment_id, include_rubric). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter relationships or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific assignment.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('assignment'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'canvas_assignment_list' or 'canvas_get_my_submission', which likely serve different but related purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'canvas_assignment_list' (for listing assignments) or 'canvas_get_my_submission' (for submission details), leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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