get_assignment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get details' clearly indicates a read-only lookup with no side effects, which is appropriate for the tool. It does not mention auth requirements or response specifics, but the risk profile is low for a simple get operation.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word 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?

For a low-complexity retrieval tool with two documented required parameters, the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It does not specify the output shape, but no output schema exists and 'details' is adequate. Mentioning how to discover assignment_id via list_assignments would be useful but is not essential.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. It adds no semantic value beyond 'course ID' and 'assignment ID', so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Canvas assignment'), and the word 'specific' signals single-item retrieval, clearly distinguishing it from list_assignments. The core purpose is unambiguous and easy for an agent to match to a request for one 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. However, 'specific assignment' implies this tool is for retrieving one known assignment, contrasted with listing assignments. This is implied usage rather than explicit routing guidance.

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