lms_get_assignment_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns details but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the assignment_id is invalid, or whether submission status is real-time or cached. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists the key content areas. No wasted words, though it could add a brief usage note without becoming bloated.

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 a simple input schema (one required parameter) and an output schema, which reduces the burden on the description. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description is only minimally viable. It covers what the tool returns but not when to use it or any behavioral caveats.

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 the undocumented assignment_id parameter. The description mentions 'assignment details' but doesn't explain how assignment_id is used, its format, or any constraints beyond the schema's integer type. The agent must infer that assignment_id identifies the target assignment.

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 ('Return') and resource ('assignment details'), and lists the key content areas: instructions, attachments, and submission status. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like lms_list_assignments beyond the 'detail' implication.

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 implies this is for fetching a single assignment's full details, as opposed to listing assignments. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus lms_list_assignments or lms_check_deadlines, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the word 'detail'.

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