rx_get_assignment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that with 'Только чтение', so there is no contradiction. It adds real value by disclosing the returned content (full thread, attachments), but says nothing about size limits or truncation for long threads, which is the remaining unknown for a full-object fetch.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler, front-loading what the tool returns before the routing and provenance sentences. Every sentence carries a distinct piece of 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, plus the id source and the sibling boundary. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the id parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds provenance beyond the schema by telling the agent the id is taken from rx_my_assignments, which is the concrete step the agent needs to obtain a valid value.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (retrieve a single assignment or notification in full) and enumerates the payload: subject, author, due date, task, attached documents, and the whole correspondence thread. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling rx_get_task, which shows the task's progress with other executors.

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?

Gives the when ('use it to understand what is actually being asked of the user'), the input provenance ('the id comes from rx_my_assignments'), and the alternative plus its distinguishing condition (rx_get_task for the task's progress with other executors). Nothing is left to inference.

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