grade_with_rubric

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core grading behavior and per-criterion scoring, but it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing grades, requiring a rubric association, or what is returned. The hint to use get_rubric appears only in the schema, not in the description, so the description adds limited behavioral context.

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 followed by a concrete alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or promotional language.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (nested criterion_scores array, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers what it does and when to use it, but omits side effects, return values, and prerequisites such as the assignment having an associated rubric. The schema fills some gaps, but the overall context is not fully complete for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 100%, with each parameter (course_id, assignment_id, student_id, criterion_scores) having a clear description, including the useful note about using get_rubric to find criterion IDs. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 action ('Grade a student's submission') using a rubric and elaborates on the method ('Provide scores for each criterion'). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool grade_submission, making its unique purpose obvious.

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?

Provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'For simple score-based grading without a rubric, use grade_submission instead.' This names the alternative tool and the condition under which it should be chosen, making the usage context clear.

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