Get Outcome Contributing Scores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, permissions, or response format). It is consistent with the read-only annotation, but does not go beyond it.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is no extraneous wording or repetition; every word earns its place.

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 description is adequate for a read-only list tool with good annotations, but it lacks details about the response structure (since no output schema exists) and does not mention the optional filters like only_assignment_alignments or show_unpublished_assignments. These are left to the schema, which is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, providing clear meaning for user_ids, course_id, outcome_id, and the two boolean flags. The tool description does not add extra semantic value beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 tool retrieves assignment or quiz scores that contributed to an outcome, specifying the resource (scores), verb (get), and scope (for students in a course). It distinguishes itself from sibling outcome tools like get_outcome_results or get_outcome_rollups by focusing on contributing scores specifically.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_outcome_results or get_outcome_rollups. No context is given for filtering by user or course, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage from the name and general purpose.

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