canvas_rubric_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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned (criteria, points, ratings, comments) but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicitly stated). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and concise, using bullet points to list return data and a final sentence for context. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary fluff. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the 'Essential for...' part into the initial statement, but overall it's clear and to the point.

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 complexity (a read operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of what data is returned, which helps compensate for the lack of output schema. However, it doesn't fully address behavioral aspects like error cases or performance, leaving some gaps in completeness for a tool without structured annotations or output details.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('course_id' and 'rubric_id'). The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or contextual usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the 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 rubric with all criteria and ratings.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed rubric'), and lists the specific data returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_rubric_list' or 'canvas_rubric_for_assignment', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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 implied usage guidance by stating 'Essential for understanding how work will be graded,' suggesting it's used when detailed rubric information is needed. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'canvas_rubric_list' (which might list rubrics) or 'canvas_rubric_for_assignment' (which might fetch a rubric linked to an assignment), and doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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