canvas_missing_submissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default output is deliberately abbreviated, full:true expands it, and known false positives from external tools exist. It still says nothing about result size, ordering, or how many rows to expect.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the false-positive caveat, then the full:true pointer. Every sentence carries information and none repeats the schema verbatim.

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 does the work of telling the agent the default rows are short and what full adds. It covers the main trap (externally submitted work) and points elsewhere for descriptions, leaving only pagination volume and ordering 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by explaining what full:true actually yields and redirecting the agent to canvas_assignment for assignment descriptions, which is a cross-tool hint the schema does not contain.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: assignments Canvas flags as missing (past due, not submitted), returned as one short row per item with its course. That is enough for an agent to separate it from submission-listing siblings, though it never names an actual alternative tool it competes with.

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 by the resource definition, and the description warns that externally submitted work (e.g. Gradescope) may appear here by mistake, which is useful triage guidance. However there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus canvas_course_submissions or canvas_submission, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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