preview_inspect_submission_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one useful trait — 'sin abrir su pagina' (without opening its page) — indicating this operation doesn't navigate away. That's modest additional context; the description doesn't describe return/behavior beyond that, but no contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

A single, compact sentence front-loads the core action. There is no filler or repetition. It earns its place, though its brevity leaves the ambiguous 'por sesion' unexpanded.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations covering the read-only safety profile and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. But the ambiguous session phrasing and zero parameter explanation leave a notable gap for a tool whose sibling pattern (inspect vs preview) an agent must infer. It is sufficient but not rich.

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 description carries the full burden for explaining course_module_id, but it never mentions the parameter at all. The only hint is 'por sesion,' which is too vague to clarify that course_module_id identifies the module whose submission status is previewed. The agent receives no meaningful semantic help.

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 states a specific action ('preview inspecting a submission') on a specific resource, and the 'preview_' prefix creates a clear contrast with its sibling inspect_submission_status. However, the phrase 'por sesion' (by session) is ambiguous — it's unclear whether this refers to per-session submissions or a session-scoped filter, which slightly muddies the resource scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this preview tool versus its non-preview sibling inspect_submission_status or get_submission_status. The naming convention implies the preview version shows the result without executing, but the description never states this distinction or any selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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