get_assignment_details

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent already knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds 'detailed information' but doesn't disclose what fields or scope are included (e.g., does it include submissions, rubric, grading status?). No contradiction exists. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description contributes moderately but doesn't specify return payload details or any side effects (which are unlikely given read-only).

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, entirely front-loaded, with no wasted words. It doesn't use bullet lists or extra details, but for a simple getter, this is appropriately concise. Minor deduction because it doesn't add a usage hint that could fit naturally, but the structure is clean.

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 it's a read-only detail fetcher with a very small schema and no output schema, the description is the only prose guidance. It tells you what it does (get details) but not what 'details' means (which fields are returned). This is a minimal viable description: it doesn't confuse the agent, but the agent might not know if this returns, e.g., due date vs submissions. Sibling tools like 'get_my_submission_status' or 'get_assignment_analytics' overlap in context, so a bit more detail could help.

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%, with both parameters described ('Canvas assignment ID' and 'Course code or Canvas ID'), so the schema already carries the main semantic weight. The description doesn't add further context about how the parameters relate or whether they must match a specific course. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents parameters.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific assignment' clearly identifies the action (get) and the resource (a specific assignment), and the definite article and 'specific' indicate it is a detail-fetching tool rather than a list tool. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'get_assignment_analytics' or 'get_my_submission_status', but the combination of 'details' and 'assignment' is reasonably specific in context.

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 this is for fetching details for a specific assignment, but it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. The sibling list includes 'list_assignments' (which likely provides overviews) and 'get_assignment_analytics' (which suggests analytics), so a statement about when to choose this over those would improve clarity. No explicit exclusions are given, but the 'specific assignment' phrasing suggests it's not for listing or aggregating.

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