tool_prepare_answer_key

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 clearly describes the tool's action (extracts questions, saves to a specific file path), purpose (to avoid re-fetching), and output location (/tmp/gradescope-answerkey-{assignment_id}.md). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like file overwriting or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences: purpose statement, detailed action, and usage timing. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The parameter documentation is clear and directly relevant.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and only 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does well by explaining the tool's purpose, behavior, and parameter roles. However, it lacks details on error handling or what happens if the file already exists, which would be helpful for a tool that saves files.

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 meaningful context for both parameters: course_id is described as 'The Gradescope course ID' and assignment_id as 'The assignment ID', which clarifies their roles in locating the specific assignment. However, it doesn't provide format examples or validation rules.

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 ('Prepare a complete answer key'), the resource ('entire assignment'), and the scope ('extracts ALL questions from the outline'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like tool_get_assignment_outline (which likely fetches but doesn't process) and tool_grade_answer_group (which grades specific answers rather than preparing a key).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Run this ONCE before grading to avoid re-fetching question details') and provides a clear timing guideline. It implies this is a preparatory step distinct from actual grading tools like tool_grade_answer_group, though it doesn't name specific alternatives.

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