Get full assignment context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so 'Read-only' is redundant. What the description genuinely adds is the status vocabulary: in_progress means started or saved as a draft and NOT handed in, and unknown must never be treated as missing work. That prevents a costly misinterpretation. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or response size.

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?

Content enumeration is front-loaded in the first sentence, then the status glossary, then the read-only note. Dense with no filler, though the single long opening sentence packs a lot before the agent reaches the operational status guidance.

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?

For an aggregation tool with no output schema, the description compensates by itemizing exactly what comes back (instructions, rubric, attachments, links, grade, status, announcements) and disambiguating the status enum values. An agent needs nothing further to call it and interpret the result.

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% and both parameters (course_id, assignment_id) are documented there, including the <course_id>:<content_id> format. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('one package describing a Blackboard assignment') and enumerates its contents: instructions, due date, points, rubric, attachments, links, grade, submission status, announcements. An agent can immediately distinguish it from get_assignments (a list) or get_attachment (a single file).

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to prefer it over 'many low-level calls' and routes link handling to the sibling read_link by name. It gives clear usage context but stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. when only the due date is needed, get_upcoming_work may suffice).

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