get_assignment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the return content ('description, materials, and due date') and the read-only nature through the verb 'Get.' However, it does not mention error behavior, permission requirements, or whether results can be empty, which would be useful for a tool with zero annotations.

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 tightly structured with a one-sentence purpose statement, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every line adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple, both parameters are documented, and an output schema exists, so the return details do not need to be exhaustively repeated. The description is sufficient for correct invocation, though slightly more guidance about choosing this over list_assignments would round it out.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'course_id: The ID of the course' and 'assignment_id: The ID of the assignment.' This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could be more specific about where these IDs originate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific assignment.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from list_assignments (list vs. single item) and get_course (different resource). No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies when to use it—when you need details for one specific assignment rather than a list—and provides the two required identifiers. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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