get_rubric_assessment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It correctly implies a read operation without contradicting annotations. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., auth requirements, rate limits) are disclosed.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and directly states the tool's function. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., fields like rubric criteria, ratings, points). For a read-only tool with three parameters, more detail on the return value would improve completeness.

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%, with each parameter having a brief description (e.g., 'The Canvas course ID'). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply reiterates that the tool retrieves a rubric assessment for the given identifiers.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('rubric assessment') with specific student and assignment context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_rubric' which retrieves the rubric definition, not the assessment.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_submission' or 'submit_rubric_assessment'. The name and description imply a read operation for a specific assessment, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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