get-assignment

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds context about the specific metadata fields returned. However, it does not disclose behaviors like error handling, response shape, or potential variations such as whether rubric is always included, so it stays at a baseline level.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, followed by a parenthetical list of examples. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the purpose, gives example return fields, and is complemented by the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not cover error cases or exact response structure, but those are not critical for such a straightforward read operation.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already explains courseId and assignmentId. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond reinforcing that it targets a single assignment, which keeps it at the baseline of 3.

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 'Fetch' with a clear resource ('metadata for a single assignment') and lists example contents (due date, points, rubric, submission types), which precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-assignments, create-assignment, or delete-assignment.

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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving a single assignment's metadata, which establishes the primary use case. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough to guide selection among siblings.

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