kupid_lms_submissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only query (조회) but does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention authentication needs or performance constraints. The description is adequate but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 concise, with a front-loaded main sentence in Korean followed by a clarification and a prerequisite note. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text.

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 has an output schema, the description appropriately does not detail return values but mentions what it checks (submission, score, grading status). The prerequisite and parameter explanation are sufficient for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 input schema has no description for course_id (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining that course_id is the id field from kupid_lms_courses. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema title, though no constraints like range are provided.

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 that the tool inspects Canvas LMS assignment submission status, including submission presence, scores, and grading status. It identifies the specific resource (submissions) and action (조회/inspect), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kupid_lms_grades that may also show scores.

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 a clear prerequisite: first check course_id using kupid_lms_courses. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, which would improve guidance.

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