Identify enrolled students who have not submitted a specific assignment, so you can see outstanding work after the deadline.
Students enrolled in the course who have not submitted this assignment. The list to look at on the morning after a deadline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assignid | Yes | Assignment id from assignments | |
| courseid | Yes | Course id from my_courses |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only query by saying 'The list to look at,' but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or mention any side effects, prerequisites, or limitations. For a simple query, this is adequate but not thorough.
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 two short sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding a practical use case. It is concise with no fluff, though it could be slightly more explicit about the verb.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and typical usage. However, it does not specify the format of the returned list (e.g., student names vs. IDs) or any ordering/pagination, leaving some ambiguity for an agent about the exact output.
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%, with both 'assignid' and 'courseid' already described as IDs from respective tables. The tool description adds no extra semantic context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 resource: students enrolled in the course who have not submitted the assignment. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', the phrasing 'The list to look at' implies a read operation that returns such students. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'submissions' or 'submission_status' because it focuses specifically on missing submissions.
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 provides a clear usage context: 'on the morning after a deadline.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the trigger scenario is concrete and useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.