tool_get_assignment_statistics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context such as the return format ('assignment-level summary... per-question breakdowns'), highlights specific outputs ('low-scoring questions'), and mentions access requirements. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or data freshness, which are important for a statistical tool.

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, starting with the core purpose and key outputs, followed by access requirements and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. Minor improvements could include bullet points for clarity, but overall it's efficient and well-structured.

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, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, outputs, access needs, and parameter context. However, it could benefit from more behavioral details like performance characteristics or usage limits to fully guide the agent in all scenarios.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'course_id' and 'assignment_id' refer to 'Gradescope course ID' and 'assignment ID', respectively, providing context that the schema's generic titles ('Course Id', 'Assignment Id') do not. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail format constraints like ID structure.

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 comprehensive statistics') and resources ('assignment'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'tool_get_assignment_details' by focusing on statistical analysis rather than general information. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar siblings like 'tool_export_assignment_scores', which slightly limits differentiation.

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 context by stating 'Requires instructor/TA access', indicating when authorization is needed. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tool_export_assignment_scores' or 'tool_get_assignment_details', nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond access, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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