canvas_get_assignment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that all requests use Canvas GET endpoints and that the server cannot modify Canvas, which reinforces the read-only nature in operational terms. It also discloses the return content (requirements, rubric, submission summary), going beyond the annotations.

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, both purposeful. The first sentence establishes the read-only capability, and the second states the specific action and return content. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter schema and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (requirements, rubric, submission summary) and its safe read-only nature. It does not mention pagination or errors, but for a single-assignment GET endpoint with strong annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only says 'Read one assignment' but never clarifies that course_id and assignment_id are the identifying IDs, nor does it add format, source, or constraints beyond the schema. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description contributes no additional semantic meaning.

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 verb 'read' and the resource 'one assignment', specifying what is read: requirements, rubric, and submission summary. This distinguishes it from siblings like canvas_get_submission (which likely focuses narrowly on submissions) and canvas_list_assignments (which lists rather than reads one).

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 for when to use the tool: when you need a single assignment's details including rubric and submission summary. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only scope and singular resource imply when it is appropriate versus listing or grade-focused tools.

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