get_assignment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at the potential absence of web mode state ('where available') but does not address error handling (e.g., assignment not found), whether the operation is read-only, or any permission requirements. The lack of explicit safety cues leaves the agent uncertain about side effects.

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 a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value: 'Get details for one Survey Solutions assignment' is efficient, and the 'web mode state' caveat is a brief but relevant extra. There is no fluff 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?

For a tool with two parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the 'profile' parameter, the return structure, or any error conditions. The 'where available' clause is vague without context. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly based purely on the description and schema, especially given the zero coverage of parameter semantics.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only mentions 'assignment_id' implicitly via 'one assignment', but the 'profile' parameter (a string) is entirely unexplained. No format, meaning, or relationship to the assignment is provided, leaving the agent unable to correctly populate the request without external knowledge.

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 states a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('details for one assignment'), and the system ('Survey Solutions'). This distinguishes it from 'list_assignments' (which lists many) and 'get_assignment_history' (which gets history). The mention of 'web mode state where available' adds specific scope without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for retrieving a single assignment by ID, nor does it contrast with list_assignments or other assignment-related operations. The description merely states what it does, not the appropriate context for selection.

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