tool_get_student_submission

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 mentions that it returns links to submission files, which is helpful behavioral information. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the role hint, or what happens if no submission exists. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 with a clear purpose statement, role restriction, return value information, and parameter explanations in a bullet-like format. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, for a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context about error conditions, permissions, and operational constraints to be fully complete.

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 provides clear semantic meaning for all three parameters (course_id, assignment_id, student_email), explaining what each represents. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format details like email validation or ID patterns.

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 specific action ('Get a specific student's most recent submission'), identifies the resource (submission files), and distinguishes it from siblings like tool_get_assignment_submissions (which likely returns all submissions) by specifying it's for a single student's most recent submission. The instructor/TA restriction further clarifies the access context.

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 explicitly states 'instructor/TA only', providing clear context about when to use this tool based on user role. However, it doesn't mention when to use alternatives like tool_get_assignment_submissions or tool_smart_read_submission, nor does it specify prerequisites beyond the parameters.

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