get_assignment

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world traits, so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful context beyond them: results are cached/static and can be stale, requiring sync for live verification. It does not disclose error behavior for invalid IDs.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The stale-data caveat and the sync escape hatch are front-loaded where the agent will see them.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the returned fields and flagging staleness. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only the failure mode for an unknown assignment_id is unstated.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema only supplies a name and pattern. The description adds no meaning about assignment_id, but the parameter is self-evident in a get-by-id tool, so baseline 3 is fair.

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 (Read) and enumerates the resource contents: assignment metadata, material file IDs, original date labels, and completeness. This is more informative than a bare 'get assignment', though the distinction from siblings like get_submission is left implicit.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Refresh with sync when live verification is needed.' This routes the agent to sync whenever freshness matters, but it gives no exclusions for when to prefer this cached read over other read siblings.

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