Get Rubric Assessment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. However, it adds no additional behavioral context—such as what constitutes a 'rubric assessment', error conditions, or return format—thus providing minimal value beyond 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 a single, concise sentence without any redundant words or fluff, perfectly sized for its purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately conveys that the return value is the rubric assessment. It does not detail the structure, but for a simple 'get' this is acceptable given the annotations and clear purpose.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions like 'The Canvas user ID'. The description itself does not add further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, hitting the baseline for good 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'rubric assessment' with a specific scope ('for a specific student submission on an assignment'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'submit_rubric_assessment' and 'get_rubric' by focusing on assessment retrieval.

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 clear context by specifying when to use the tool (for a specific student submission), but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like 'get_rubric' for rubric definitions. No conflicting usage scenarios are mentioned.

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