get_assignment_status

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

Despite no annotations, the description accurately indicates it is a read-only operation ('Get submission and grading status'). However, it does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the assignment must be active, any authorization requirements, or what happens if the ID is invalid. The lack of annotations places more burden on the description, which partially fulfills it.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. Every part is relevant and efficiently communicates the tool's function.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete, but it lacks details on the return format or what 'status' includes. For a tool that presumably returns structured data, additional context would improve completeness.

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, and the description only adds 'by its ID', which does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. The parameter 'assignid' is required and integer-typed, but the description does not clarify its format, valid range, or how to obtain it.

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 action ('Get submission and grading status'), the resource ('specific assignment'), and the scope ('by its ID'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_assignments' which lists assignments, and 'analyze_assignment' which likely does more analysis.

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 like 'get_assignments' or 'analyze_assignment'. The description implies it requires an assignment ID but doesn't specify prerequisites or context for usage.

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