get_submission

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the response scope—'body and attachments included'—which clarifies what the agent can expect to receive. While it does not mention side effects or permissions, the read-only nature is strongly implied by the 'get' verb. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate transparency, though it could benefit from explicit read-only confirmation.

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 one concise sentence: 'One submission in full, body and attachments included.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key detail about body and attachments. No words are wasted, and every element adds value.

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 getter tool, the description covers the primary behavior (returning a full submission) but lacks important context. It does not explain the parameter semantics, provide usage guidance relative to sibling tools, or describe the return structure beyond body and attachments. With no output schema, a bit more detail would be helpful, but the tool is basic enough that this is minimally viable.

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%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the three parameters (course, assignment_id, user_id). Although the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not explain how they combine to uniquely identify a submission or what format 'course' should take. This is a significant gap given the absence of 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 clearly states that the tool retrieves a single, complete submission including body and attachments. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_submissions, which lists submissions, and classify_submissions, which categorizes them. The verb 'get' is implied by the tool name, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage: 'One submission in full' suggests this tool is for fetching a specific submission rather than listing all submissions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_submissions, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The guidance is implied but not articulated.

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