Retrieve submission details such as draft text, files, feedback, and permissions for a specific assignment to evaluate its current state.
Consulta borrador, archivos, texto, feedback y permisos actuales de una entrega.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assignment_id | Yes | ||
| course_module_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, which covers safety. The description adds value by enumerating the exact content retrieved (draft, files, text, feedback, permissions), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. No wasted words, and the key output elements are front-loaded.
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 operation with rich safety annotations, the description adequately summarizes what is returned. However, it lacks parameter explanations and usage guidance, making it incomplete for an agent who needs to know how to specify the submission. The absence of an output schema also leaves return format unspecified.
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%, so the schema provides no parameter explanations. The description does not mention parameters at all, leaving assignment_id and course_module_id completely unexplained. This is a major gap for a tool with two parameters.
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 action (query) and the resource (submission's draft, files, text, feedback, permissions). It is specific about the data returned. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_work_item or get_private_files_info, though the focus on submission status is arguably unique.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The description only states functionality, leaving the agent to infer when to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.