klax_get_assignment_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses read-only behavior and that it returns scores and feedback comments, but doesn't mention what happens for ungraded submissions, whether feedback may be absent, or any auth requirements. The read-only disclosure is useful but limited.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and read-only nature. The task_id guidance is relevant and concise. No wasted words, though it could add a bit more parameter context without bloating.

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 an output schema, so return values are covered. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain more about the parameters and edge cases (e.g., ungraded assignments, empty feedback). It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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. It explains task_id's origin (from klax_get_deadlines) but says nothing about course_id, verbose, or yearhakgi. The description adds meaning for one parameter only, leaving three undocumented.

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 tool retrieves scores and professor feedback comments for submitted and graded assignments, and explicitly notes it is read-only. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing klax_get_deadlines for task_id, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 provides clear context: use it for graded assignments, and use task_id from klax_get_deadlines. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the read-only note and task_id source give practical guidance.

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