Retrieve a specific homework’s detailed settings and rules by ID, including grade weighting, late-submission policy, grading method, and observation configuration.
取得特定作業的詳細設定與規範（依據 dt/dd 結構解析出的成績比重、允許遲交、評分方式、觀摩設定與說明）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| homeworkId | Yes | 作業 ID（例如 70800） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral hint — that values are parsed out of a dt/dd HTML structure, implying fields may be absent or scraped rather than first-class data — but it says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, or failure behavior for an invalid ID.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical used efficiently to enumerate returned fields rather than pad. Nothing is wasted.
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 usefully compensates by listing the concrete settings the caller will receive. It is nearly complete for a single-parameter read tool; only edge cases (nonexistent ID, unpublished homework, missing dt/dd sections) are unaddressed.
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% and the single parameter (homeworkId) is fully documented with a type and an example (70800). The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ('取得特定作業的詳細設定與規範') and enumerates the exact fields returned (grade weight, late submission, grading method, observation settings, description). It is clearly a detail-fetch counterpart to the sibling list_homeworks, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus list_homeworks, create_homework, or audit_homework_submission. The only guidance is implicit — that a single 'homeworkId' is required — so an agent must infer the use case from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.