get_my_submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral content beyond that: submission_comments, submission_history and rubric_assessment are returned by default, and grading feedback may live in comments rather than score fields — a non-obvious trait an agent could not infer from structured data.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the high-value default-fields warning. The teacher-specific aside ('e.g. Rettberg in DLS') is slightly anecdotal but motivates the critical instruction, so it mostly 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the tool is simple with only two required params. The remaining gap is that with 0% schema coverage the description does nothing to explain the required identifiers, leaving an agent unsure how to obtain valid course_id/assignment_id values.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for course_id and assignment_id, yet it never mentions either parameter, its type, or where the ids come from (e.g., list_all_courses / list_assignments). The two required ids are left entirely to guesswork beyond their names.

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 and resource — 'Get the user's submission for an assignment' — and scopes it with 'full detail.' It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_assignment or canvas_prepare_submission, so an agent must infer that this one returns the caller's own submission rather than assignment metadata.

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 a clear directive on how to use the result ('an agent surfacing a submission must include comments as first-class feedback'), which is real usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not clause and no named alternative (e.g., use get_assignment for the spec, canvas_prepare_submission to submit), so selection between siblings remains implied.

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