get_submission

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' communicates a read-only operation, and the listed output content adds context, but the description does not mention error behavior, permissions, side-effect freedom, or response shape details. It is adequate but thin.

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 front-loaded sentence: the action and object come first, and the trailing clause adds useful specifics without redundancy or filler.

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 three-ID retrieval tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and key output facets, and the schema covers all required inputs. It does not provide a full return structure, but with no output schema and this complexity level, the coverage is sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already conveys; the relationship between courseId, courseWorkId, and submissionId is left to the generic schema descriptions.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed student submission info') and concretely lists what is included: attached files, links, and assigned grade. This clearly distinguishes it from list_submissions and the write-oriented sibling tools.

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?

Usage context is implied by the singular 'submission' and the three required identifiers, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_submissions or provide any when-not/exclusion guidance. An agent must infer the boundary from the tool name and siblings.

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