tool_get_submission_grading_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the return data comprehensively (rubric items, evaluations, score, comments, navigation URLs, images) and implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a detailed list of returns, and ends with usage guidance and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (grading context tool), no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It details what the tool returns and when to use it, but lacks information on permissions, errors, or pagination that could enhance completeness.

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 lists all three parameters (course_id, question_id, submission_id) and clarifies they are IDs for Gradescope entities, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not provide format examples or constraints.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'full grading context for a question submission', specifying it returns rubric items, evaluations, score, comments, navigation URLs, and images. It distinguishes from siblings like tool_apply_grade (which applies grades) and tool_get_question_rubric (which focuses only on rubric).

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 by stating 'Use this before applying grades', which implicitly guides when to use it relative to tool_apply_grade. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes.

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