Get Assignment

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds value by indicating that optional fields like submission, overrides, and all_dates are requested via include rather than returned by default. It doesn't reveal additional behavior such as response shape, error conditions, or rate limits, so it provides only partial transparency beyond the 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 two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every word earns its place; no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 read-only, single-resource retrieval nature and rich schema descriptions, the description is sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly. The absence of an output schema is not a large gap because the tool name and 'get details' wording convey the expected return type, but the description could add a little more context about how actual include returns are shaped.

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 100%, so all six parameters already have descriptions. The tool description reinforces the include parameter's usage but does not add new semantic details or clarify formatting, types, or relationships beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Get details') and the resource ('a single assignment by ID'), distinguishing it from list-oriented sibling tools like list_assignments and get_assignment_analytics. The mention of optional include fields adds further scope and purpose specificity.

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 explicitly positions this tool as the way to fetch details for a single assignment by ID and instructs the agent on how to request optional fields via include. It does not name alternative tools or provide explicit non-use cases, but the intent is clear.

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