get_rubric

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context about parameter precedence (uses rubric_id if both provided), which is useful beyond the annotation. It does not describe error conditions or return format, but given the annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the key parameter rule. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 operation with no output schema, the description conveys the essential return content (criteria, ratings, points) and the parameter selection logic. It does not mention error cases or additional return metadata, but given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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 fully documents each parameter (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful detail about the relationship between rubric_id and assignment_id (at least one required, and precedence if both), which is not in the schema. This additional guidance surpasses the baseline.

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 tool fetches detailed rubric criteria, ratings, and points, which distinguishes it from list_rubrics (listing) and get_rubric_assessment (assessments). It also specifies the resource (rubric) and the two lookup methods, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use rubric_id vs assignment_id and the precedence rule. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_rubrics or get_rubric_assessment, leaving the choice of tool somewhat implicit. It provides clear parameter usage context but no exclusions.

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