inspect_submission_status

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

Annotations give readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds that Moodle may record view/completion—a potential side effect. This is some transparency, but it is unclear whether this is the tool's primary action or an incidental effect, and it does not clarify what 'abre' means operationally. The description carries little of the behavioral burden beyond a vague hint.

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 extremely short, but under-specification is not conciseness. One vague sentence provides almost no information. It is not front-loaded with key details; it merely hints at a behavior without explaining the tool's core function.

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?

This is a tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotation richness. The description fails to explain what 'inspect' means, what the agent should expect, or how to interpret the confirmation_token. Given the complexity of the sibling set (e.g., get_submission_status), this is completely inadequate for correct invocation.

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%—the description does not mention course_module_id or confirmation_token at all. The names are self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional meaning about their format, purpose, or relationship. With no parameter documentation in the schema (only type/required), a 1 is warranted.

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 'Abre una vez la entrega confirmada' is vague and tautological—'abre' does not clearly indicate what the tool does, and the name 'inspect_submission_status' implies inspection, not opening. The second clause about Moodle recording view/completion is a side-note, not a clear purpose. It fails to state a specific verb+resource or distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_submission_status.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or contrast with get_submission_status, preview_inspect_submission_status, or inspect_quiz_attempt. The agent is given no context to choose this tool over others.

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