Submission feedback

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that this returns instructor comments and score/grade for the user's graded submission, but does not cover edge cases such as missing feedback, ungraded submissions, or permission behavior.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then parameter forms, then a natural-language example. It is concise overall, though the parameter guidance substantially duplicates the already-rich schema descriptions.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema descriptions and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description gives enough context to call it correctly. It also indicates the return content, which helps since no output schema exists, but it omits edge-case behavior.

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 schema already documents both course_id and assignment including accepted names/IDs and references to get_my_courses/get_assignments. The description repeats the same accepted forms without adding new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 resource and scope: instructor comments on a graded submission for one Canvas assignment, including score and grade. It implicitly distinguishes this from broader sibling tools like get_my_grades or get_assignments, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 is implied through the example question and the mention of passing course/assignment identifiers. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_my_grades or get_assignments, nor any when-not conditions.

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