tool_get_assignment_submissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: access restrictions ('instructor/TA only'), performance characteristics ('May be slow for large classes'), and return format ('Returns a list of submission IDs and file counts'). This covers important operational context beyond basic functionality.

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 efficiently structured: purpose statement first, return format second, performance note third, and parameter explanations last. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, access, performance, and parameters. It could mention pagination or error cases, but for a read-only tool with output schema, it's mostly adequate.

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 must compensate. It documents both parameters (course_id, assignment_id) with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't provide format details, examples, or constraints, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 all submissions for an assignment' with the specific resource (submissions) and verb (get). It distinguishes from siblings like 'tool_get_student_submission' (singular) and 'tool_get_assignment_details' (metadata). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all relevant siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 clear context: 'instructor/TA only' specifies the required role, and 'May be slow for large classes' warns about performance limitations. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'tool_get_student_submission' for individual submissions), so it's not a full 5.

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