get_rubric

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return content (criteria, point values, rating levels), which is useful. However, it does not state whether this is a read-only operation (though 'get' implies it), what happens if IDs are invalid, or whether pagination or extensive data is involved. It adds value beyond the schema but not a complete behavioral picture.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and the returned data, then adds the usage context. There is zero verbosity; 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 simple get operation with an output schema available, the description covers the essential purpose and use case. It could be improved by mentioning that it complements list_rubrics or how the IDs are obtained, but given the output schema and the simplicity of the tool, it is fairly complete. Nothing critical is missing for a correct call.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not mention rubric_id or course_identifier at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no guidance on how to obtain or format them (e.g., where rubric_id comes from). This is a notable gap given the low schema coverage.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('a rubric'), and the specific data returned ('criteria, point values, and rating levels'). This distinguishes it from list_rubrics, which would only list rubric summaries, and from grade_with_rubric, which consumes this data. The purpose is 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 explicitly states a concrete use case: 'needed to build a grade_with_rubric call.' This tells the agent when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the single-purpose framing is clear enough; the lack of a comparison to list_rubrics is a minor gap.

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