get_assignment

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states read-only behavior and scope (registered courses). It also discloses the types of information returned (description, deadline, attachments, submission status). It does not mention error handling or idempotency, but for a simple read operation, this is adequate.

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 extremely concise at two short sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then adds constraints. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description lists the main return fields (description, deadline, attachments, submission status), which is sufficient for a getter tool. However, it does not specify the output format or structure, which might leave some ambiguity. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (url and idnumber). The description adds no additional information about the parameters beyond the schema, so a 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?

Description clearly states the specific verb 'get' and resource 'assignment details', listing included fields (説明, 締切, 添付, 提出状況). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_assignments by indicating it retrieves details of a single assignment, not a list. The constraint 'read-only, only for registered courses' further clarifies scope.

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?

Description provides context for when to use (when needing assignment details, read-only, registered courses). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives like list_assignments for listing, but the sibling context and the phrase 'only for registered courses' offer implicit guidance.

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