Get Submission Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' is somewhat redundant. However, the instructor-only permission caveat is valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, helping an agent anticipate errors.

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 three short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes only relevant caveats. There is no wasted text.

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 read-only count tool with complete schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the counts returned and notes permission behavior, though it could briefly clarify that counts are scoped to the given course and assignment.

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 both parameters are well documented with source hints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get counts of graded, ungraded, and not-submitted submissions for an assignment. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as list_missing_submissions or get_score_statistics.

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 gives useful context that the tool is often instructor-only and may return a permission error for students, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_missing_submissions or get_score_statistics.

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