Get My Grades

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and openWorld, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it is scoped to the authenticated student, and omitting course_id returns grades across all enrolled courses. This default behavior is useful for the agent to predict invocation outcomes.

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 short sentences front-load the core action and scope, with the conditional behavior in the second sentence. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only one-parameter getter with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description covers the essential invocation semantics. It could clarify what 'grade data' contains, but it is not a serious gap for selecting and calling the tool.

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?

There is only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents course_id fully. The description's conditional adds no syntax, format, or domain detail beyond the schema's 'Canvas course ID (omit for all courses)', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get grade data') and immediately scopes it to the authenticated student, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gradebook history or list_submissions. The optional course_id conditional also clarifies the resource scope.

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 gives clear context: it is a self-service student tool for grades rather than an instructor gradebook tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the student-scoped context is sufficient for most selection decisions.

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