canvas_rubric_for_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 describes the action ('Get', 'retrieves') but lacks details on behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's minimal in behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by clarifying details. Both sentences earn their place by explaining functionality and convenience, with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic understanding but lacks depth. It covers what the tool does and why to use it, but doesn't address behavioral aspects or output details, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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 both parameters (course_id and assignment_id) adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these IDs are needed, which is redundant. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with specific verbs ('Get', 'retrieves') and resources ('rubric attached to a specific assignment', 'grading criteria for an assignment'). It distinguishes from siblings like canvas_rubric_get and canvas_rubric_list by specifying it's for an assignment's rubric, not a general rubric lookup.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Directly retrieves the grading criteria for an assignment') and mentions an alternative ('More convenient than finding rubric ID separately'), which implies it's preferable to manual methods. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly to sibling tools like canvas_rubric_get.

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