Get Rubric Assessment

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that this is a safe read. It adds the scope of being for a specific student submission on an assignment, but does not disclose return format, authentication needs, or rate limits. With the annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and scope, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 tool is a simple read-only getter, and the schema fully covers required inputs, with annotations covering safety. However, since no output schema exists, the description could say more about what a rubric assessment returns; it leaves that for the agent to infer. It is adequate but has a clear gap.

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 three parameters (course_id, assignment_id, user_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description implies the same identifiers but adds no syntax, format, or alternative meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 gives a specific verb (Get) and resource (rubric assessment) scoped to a student submission on an assignment, making it clear how it differs from get_rubric or submit_rubric_assessment. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states what the tool retrieves but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_submission or list_rubrics, and it provides no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the resource name, which is insufficient for a clear when-to-use recommendation.

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