tool_get_assignment_outline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses access requirements ('Requires instructor/TA access') and hints at the return content ('hierarchical question structure with IDs, types, weights, and question text'), but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit).

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, followed by key details on returns and access, with a brief parameter section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics, but since the output schema exists, it need not explain return values. A minor gap is lack of behavioral details like error cases or performance.

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 compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that course_id is 'The Gradescope course ID' and assignment_id is 'The assignment ID', clarifying their roles beyond the schema's generic titles. However, it does not specify format or constraints (e.g., numeric vs. string IDs).

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 specific action ('Get the question/rubric outline') and resource ('for an assignment'), distinguishing it from siblings like tool_get_assignment_details or tool_get_question_rubric by focusing on hierarchical structure rather than general details or specific rubric items.

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?

It provides clear context by stating this is 'Essential for understanding how an assignment is structured' and 'Requires instructor/TA access', which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as tool_get_assignment_details for broader information.

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