assignment_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the returned content inventory, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, authentication, rate limits, or lookup failure behavior (e.g. what happens with an invalid id).

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the content inventory is front-loaded and the id/cmid note is appended. Slightly dense enumeration, but every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values or side effects. It is complete enough to call correctly, with the only real gap being the unexplained cmid alternative that the schema does not expose.

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% and the single parameter carries no documentation, so the description has to compensate. It does add that the assignment id is 'preferred' and that a cmid is also accepted, but the schema exposes only one integer field named assignment_id, so the cmid mention is ambiguous rather than actionable and the actual format/range is never clarified.

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 specific resource (one assignment) and enumerates exactly what is returned: instructions, dates, submission requirements, status, grading, attachments. An agent can tell it is a single-item detail fetch. It never names or contrasts itself with nearby siblings such as upcoming_assignments or submission_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Everything about one assignment' suggests calling it when detail on a single assignment is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing versus the many sibling list tools. No prerequisites or context requirements are stated.

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