canvas_assignment_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral detail beyond the schema: the return content, that due times come back in Beijing time as ISO8601, and that attachments are identified by file_id, name and size. It says nothing about read-only semantics, error behavior when the keyword matches multiple assignments, or whether submission status is included.

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 compact sentence with the resource named first and the returned fields listed after, with zero filler. It is slightly list-heavy but every element conveys information.

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's field list is the only documentation of return values, and it may not be exhaustive (submission status, points, rubrics are unmentioned). For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is adequate but leaves gaps about result shape and failure modes.

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 both parameters (course, assignment) are already documented in the schema as id or name keyword. The description adds no further meaning about how fuzzy matching or id-vs-name resolution works, so baseline 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 states a specific resource, assignment details, and enumerates what is returned (description text, in-description attachments with file_id/name/size, due time, submission type), so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as canvas_deadlines, canvas_todo, or canvas_submit, which keeps it from a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no pointer to alternatives like canvas_deadlines for deadline lists or canvas_submit for submitting. The 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.