get_assignment

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 only states it returns 'full detail' but reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, error behavior, or whether it is a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The critical parameter format is front-loaded in the second sentence, and the entire description is efficiently 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?

For a simple fetch-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential detail (parameter format). However, it does not mention what 'full detail' includes, any prerequisites (e.g., auth), or error conditions. Given no annotations, this leaves gaps that could cause an agent to misuse it, but the tool's simplicity keeps it at an adequate level.

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. The explanation of assignment_id format ('<cv_cid>:<item_id>') adds meaning beyond the bare 'string' type in the schema. Though it doesn't describe other potential aspects, it fully clarifies the single required parameter.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Full detail for one assignment.' It is unambiguous about the tool's purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_assignments, though the singular 'one assignment' implies that distinction. Still, it is clear and specific.

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 full detail for a single assignment), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_assignments for listing. It provides no exclusions, so it falls under 'implied usage' rather than explicit guidance.

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