get_assignment_analytics

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool returns distribution and rates, implying a read-only operation, which is reasonably transparent. However, it does not disclose any potential limitations (e.g., pagination, course existence requirements) or special behavior beyond the content returned.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It efficiently communicates the main output and scope without 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 read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states what the tool returns and the course context. However, it lacks any guidance on alternative tools or prerequisites, which would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description merely says 'for a course,' which adds little beyond the parameter name 'course_identifier.' It does not clarify whether the identifier should be an internal ID or SIS ID, nor the expected format. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 a specific action (get), a resource (score distribution and on-time/late/missing rates), and scope (every assignment in a course). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_assignment_details (single assignment) and get_student_analytics (student-level analytics).

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 it is for aggregate course-wide analytics per assignment, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives like list_assignments or list_missing_submissions. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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