extract_assignment_requirements

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the extraction goal without mentioning read-only nature, side effects, error behavior, or what happens with invalid input. This is insufficient for transparent behavior.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and objects, making it concise. However, it could benefit from additional details without becoming verbose, hence not a 5.

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 interface (one parameter, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It doesn't specify input format, output structure, or how it relates to sibling tools, making it incomplete for the agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 has 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'assignid' of type integer. The description does not explain what 'assignid' represents (e.g., the assignment ID), leaving the agent without needed context to provide the correct value.

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 uses the specific verb 'extract and structure' and lists concrete items (requirements, deliverables, constraints, evaluation criteria) from an assignment description. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'analyze_assignment', which may perform a similar function, so it misses the distinction required for a score of 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_assignment' or 'find_relevant_materials'. No context for prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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