get_rubric

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns all criteria and rating scales, and that including 'assessments' retrieves every rubric_assessment row with IDs. This implies a read-only operation and communicates the data scope, though it does not mention potential volume or pagination, preventing a perfect score.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence is informative and necessary: the first explains the main function, and the second provides critical downstream usage context. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the response contains (criteria, rating scales, optional assessment rows with IDs) and clearly ties to sibling tools (grade_with_rubric, update_rubric_assessment, delete_rubric_assessment). The tool's complexity is well covered given the rich context.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the practical importance of the 'include' parameter (specifically 'assessments') and how returned IDs are used by other tools, enhancing understanding of the parameters' purpose.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details of a rubric, including all criteria and their rating scales.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_rubrics' (which only lists) and 'get_rubric_assessments' (which focuses only on assessments) by emphasizing the comprehensive nature of the response.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool relative to alternatives: the returned criterion IDs are needed by grade_with_rubric, and passing include=['assessments'] provides the IDs needed by update_rubric_assessment and delete_rubric_assessment. This gives clear guidance on how this tool fits into workflows with sibling tools.

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