list_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 explicitly states the tool lists only the current user's submissions and returns a PaginatedResponse. It does not discuss other behavioral traits like authentication or rate limits, but its read-only nature is clear.

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 concise and front-loaded. It efficiently states the purpose, then lists parameters in a structured Args section. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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?

For a list tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the function, parameters, and return type (PaginatedResponse with submissions, grades, comments). No major gaps are present.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains each parameter: course_id (required), include (optional list of extra data like 'assignment' or 'submission_comments'), page (1-indexed default 1), and items_per_page (default 10). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles.

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 lists the current user's submissions for a course, including grades and feedback. The verb 'list' and resource 'submissions' are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that handle different resources (e.g., assignments, courses).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. While it's clear the tool is for listing submissions, there is no guidance on exclusions or comparisons with siblings. The context is implied but not explicit.

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