Get Assignment Analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate read-only safety. It adds valuable behavioral detail: the specific analytics returned (min, max, median, quartiles, submission count, tardiness breakdown) and the scoping behavior of assignment_id. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention edge cases like empty results or performance implications, which is acceptable given the read-only annotation.

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 exactly two sentences, with the core purpose stated first and the scoping option second. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. Front-loading the primary action and then clarifying the optional parameter is an efficient and clear structure.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what analytics are returned (statistical summary, submission count, tardiness breakdown), the scoping logic, and the required course_id implicit in the schema. The agent has all the information needed to correctly invoke the tool and interpret the result without an output schema.

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%, and the schema already documents both parameters with clear descriptions, including the scoping behavior of assignment_id ('Scope the result to a single assignment ID. Omit to return analytics for all assignments.'). The description essentially restates this same information, adding no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Thus the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('score distribution analytics for assignments'), and the exact scope (a course, optionally a single assignment). It distinguishes from sibling analytics tools like get_course_analytics and get_student_analytics by focusing on assignment-level statistics, making intent 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?

It clearly explains how to scope to one assignment or all assignments, giving explicit usage context. However, it does not directly mention when to prefer this over alternative analytics tools (e.g., get_course_analytics), nor does it offer exclusions. The 'omit to return all' guidance is strong, but it lacks an explicit comparison to siblings, so a 4 rather than 5.

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