classify_submissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without explaining whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it mutates state, or any side effects. The limited behavioral info falls short of what an agent needs to safely invoke the tool.

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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it is slightly under-specified; more context would improve its utility without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain the return format or how the classification relates to other tools. Given the existence of related tools like list_submissions and needs_grading, the description is too sparse to provide a complete understanding.

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?

The input schema has no property descriptions, so the description must explain the parameters. It only says 'Split the submissions' without clarifying how course and assignment_id are used, their formats, or constraints. The parameter names are self-explanatory but the description adds no additional semantic value.

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 tool's function: it splits submissions into four specific categories (graded, resubmitted, new, not submitted). This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_submissions or needs_grading.

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?

The description implies a use case (categorizing submissions) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_submissions or needs_grading. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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