List Submission Comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description rightly doesn't repeat that safety profile. It adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: the payload includes author and time, and comment text is fenced as untrusted content (a prompt-injection guardrail the agent otherwise wouldn't know).

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the read-only note, then the security fence, then the follow-up action. No filler and nothing buried.

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-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, content shape (author/time), trust handling, and the companion write tool. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering or pagination of the comment list.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage on both required parameters, the schema already explains course_id and assignment_id including where to obtain them. The description adds no format or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (comments on your submission), plus the scope of who comments come from (instructor and others) and the fields returned (author and time). This clearly separates it from post_submission_comment and from generic entry/discussion listing tools.

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?

Explicitly routes the write action to post_submission_comment, so the read/write pair is unambiguous. It does not mention other adjacent siblings (get_submission_summary, list_submission_attachments) or prerequisites like needing a submission to exist, but the core usage direction is clear.

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