submissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only list operation but does not explicitly state that it does not modify data. It also does not disclose potential performance considerations, pagination, or required permissions. The description is purely about what it returns, not about how it behaves or any caveats.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key output fields. It is concise and to the point, though it could be slightly more structured, but overall it earns a high score for 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 description lists the returned fields (userid, status, timestamp, file names with URLs, online text), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it does not mention the only_submitted parameter's effect or any limitations such as pagination. Given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly complete, but some usage context is missing.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (assignid and only_submitted), so the description adds no extra meaning. It implicitly references the assignment via 'one assignment' but does not elaborate on parameter usage or formats. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to list who submitted what for a single assignment, including status, timestamp, file names with URLs, and online text. The scope 'for one assignment' helps distinguish it from course-level or student-level tools, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools like submission_status or missing to differentiate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that submission_status might be for a single student's status or that missing might be for missing submissions. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given, leaving the agent to infer based on the name and parameters.

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