canvas_get_my_submission

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists return values (status, score, comments, etc.), which is helpful, but fails to mention critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by a bulleted list of return values. Each sentence earns its place by providing useful information without redundancy. However, the bulleted list could be slightly more concise, and there's room to integrate usage context more efficiently.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and return values well, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., auth, errors) and usage guidelines. Without an output schema, the description compensates by listing return values, but overall it falls short of being fully comprehensive for safe and effective use.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (course_id, assignment_id, include_rubric_assessment, include_comments). The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors. This meets the baseline score when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get your submission for a specific assignment.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('your submission'), making it distinct from sibling tools like canvas_assignment_get or canvas_quiz_submission. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from canvas_missing_submissions or other submission-related tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user authentication), compare it to sibling tools like canvas_missing_submissions or canvas_quiz_submission, or specify scenarios where it's appropriate. This lack of contextual usage information leaves the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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