explain_grading_policy

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

The description discloses permissions behavior (instructor vs student), return format (plain-language summary), and what sections are shared. Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) are consistent; no contradiction. Description adds value beyond annotations by specifying access distinctions.

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 well-structured with bullet points, front-loaded with main purpose, and each sentence adds value. No fluff; it is concise yet comprehensive.

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's complexity (multiple policy sections, permissions), the description covers all necessary context: what is returned, who can see what, and a pointer to a sibling tool. No output schema is needed as the description explains return value sufficiently.

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% with a clear description for 'course_id'. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, but baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers all parameters adequately.

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 uses specific verbs ('explains') and clearly identifies the resource ('grading automation rules for a Canvas course'). It lists the specific policies covered (missing-submission, late-submission, assignment-group weighting, grading scheme) and distinguishes from sibling 'explain_grade' tool.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use (for explaining grading policy) and when not to (for actual grade, use explain_grade). Mentions permission requirements: late/missing policy requires instructor/admin; students get limited view. This is clear and actionable.

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