Explain Grading Policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns sections depending on permissions, includes a caveat for students, and provides a shareable summary paragraph. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining what different users see and the permission dependency, making it highly transparent.

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 for each policy area and a concluding note about alternatives and permissions. It is concise—no redundant sentences—and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds relevant information.

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 explains multiple aspects of grading policy, and the description covers all major return sections (missing/late policies, weights, scheme) as well as the summary paragraph. Since there is no output schema, the description effectively replaces that by outlining what the agent can expect. Permission differences and alternative tool are also covered, making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The only parameter, course_id, is fully described in the schema ('Canvas course ID to explain the grading policy for'). Schema coverage is 100%, so per the rubric the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but the schema is sufficient; no further clarification is needed.

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 that the tool 'Explains the grading automation rules configured for a Canvas course' and enumerates specific aspects (missing-submission, late-submission, group weighting, grading scheme). It distinguishes itself from sibling explain_grade by explicitly mentioning that compute actual weighted grade is a different tool, so the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 note explicitly says 'Use explain_grade to compute the actual weighted grade for a specific student,' providing a direct alternative. It also explains permission requirements (instructor/admin for late/missing policy, students get limited sections), giving clear guidance on when and for whom this tool is appropriate.

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