Get full assignment context

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

The description repeats 'Read-only', which is already declared in annotations, and adds a few useful behaviors: attachments return local file paths (not files) and rubric inclusion is conditional ('when available'). However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like performance cost or external dependencies, and openWorldHint remains unexplained. The added value beyond annotations is modest.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the full scope of returned data; the second provides immediate usage guidance. Every word contributes value, and the description is appropriately sized for a read-only aggregate tool.

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 no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the return contents, covering all major elements an agent would need to expect. It does not mention error conditions or edge cases, but for a read-only package tool, this is near-complete. The parameters are fully covered by the schema, so the description alone is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters, including nuances like course_id being required only for bare content ids. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so scoring at the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a unified package of assignment data, enumerating specific elements: instructions, due date, points, rubric, attachments with local paths, grade/status, and announcements. It distinguishes itself from low-level calls by framing it as an aggregate, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 instructs to 'use this instead of many low-level calls', providing clear guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. However, it does not specify scenarios where a low-level tool (e.g., get_grades for just a grade) would be more appropriate, so it lacks exclusion conditions.

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