rm_get_assignment

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

The description ('Get details') is fully consistent with the annotations readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so there is no contradiction. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide — nothing about error behavior, auth needs, or return scope. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not enriched.

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?

One six-word sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb. Every word earns its place. It is not scored a 5 because it borders on under-specification, but for pure conciseness it is well-constructed.

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 simple get-by-ID tool, the combination of the minimal description, a required assignment_id in the schema, read-only annotations, and an output schema covers the essential contract. Gaps remain: no mention of error responses for invalid IDs, no hint that the ID typically comes from rm_list_assignments, and no clarification of the dual-type parameter. Adequate but not 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. 'Specific assignment' only loosely implies that assignment_id identifies the target resource; it does not explain the integer-or-string flexibility, valid values, or error outcomes. The burden falls on the description and it fails to meet it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('details for a specific assignment'). The word 'specific' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling rm_list_assignments, which would return many. It does not explicitly name or contrast siblings, so it falls just 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 use case is implied: an agent would call this when it has a particular assignment in mind and needs its details, as opposed to rm_list_assignments for enumeration. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated; the description carries the minimum viable level of implied usage.

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