get_rubric_assessments

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: returns per-criterion data but omits assessment row IDs, which is critical for follow-up operations. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get all' but not explicitly stated; still, the key limitation is covered.

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 core purpose, and the follow-up note about row IDs is essential and efficiently phrased.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the output content and a critical limitation. It also points to the alternative for getting row IDs, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for course_id and assignment_id. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches all rubric assessments for an assignment, showing per-criterion scores per student. It also differentiates from get_rubric by noting it does not return row IDs, which helps select the correct tool.

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 instructs that if assessment row IDs are needed (for update/delete), one should call get_rubric with include=['assessments'] instead. This gives clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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