get-rubric-scores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions retrieving rubric scores per criterion but fails to disclose required user role (e.g., student), prerequisites (e.g., assignment must have rubric), or any side effects or restrictions.

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?

Single sentence, perfectly concise, front-loaded with action and resource, no redundant information.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should hint at return format; it mentions 'per criterium' but lacks details on whether scores include labels, comments, or weights. Also, without annotations, more behavioral 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?

Schema has 100% coverage for both parameters ('courseId', 'assignmentId') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Haal op' (get) and resource 'rubric scores per criterium' for a graded assignment, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get-assignment-rubric' (template) and 'get-my-grades' (overall grades).

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?

The description implies usage after grading but provides no explicit when/when-not or alternatives. Among many sibling tools, guidance on distinguishing from 'get-assignment-feedback' or 'get-my-grades' is absent.

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