Get My Assignment Scores

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint, so the description carries the rest and does well: it discloses the data source (the student's own submissions/token), the full status taxonomy returned per assignment (missing, late, excused, ungraded, etc.), and explicitly that no course total is computed. It doesn't mention pagination or how ungraded/not-posted items are ordered, but the core behavioral profile is clear.

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?

Front-loaded statement of what is returned, then supporting detail, then the exclusion. The status enumeration is long but each value is meaningful output vocabulary rather than filler. Minor trimming of the status list would not lose much.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe the return shape: grouping by assignment group, group weight when weighting applies, drop rules, and per-assignment score/points and status. An agent knows exactly what it gets back and what it must call instead for a course total.

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?

Only one parameter (course_identifier) and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already saying 'Course code or Canvas ID'. The description adds no format nuance beyond that, so this is the baseline case where the schema does the work.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'List your score on every assignment in a course, grouped by assignment group.' It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_my_course_grades (course-level) and calculate_grade_scenarios (computed totals), which it names directly.

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?

Explicitly bounds usage: student token's own submissions, per-course, and it excludes the course-total use case by routing to calculate_grade_scenarios. It doesn't contrast with get_my_submission_status or get_my_course_grades by name, so the alternative-routing picture is only partly covered.

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