list_submissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a list and includes state, grade, and links, and it documents the filtering behavior of 'states' and pagination via 'page_size'. It does not disclose defaults for omitted parameters, ordering, authorization expectations, or whether the operation is strictly read-only beyond the implication of 'list'.

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 well-structured with an Args section and a Returns section, each line earning its place. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. A minor typo ('Comma-separated' written as 'Comma-separated') and the slightly mechanical format prevent a perfect score.

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 four parameters, two required, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential calling context: what the tool does, what each parameter means, and what the return contains. It does not clarify behaviors like default state filtering or maximum page_size bounds, but these are minor given the output schema and simple list operation.

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%, but the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: course_id and assignment_id are identified as IDs, page_size is described as the maximum return count, and states is detailed with comma-separated valid values. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema names.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all submissions for an assignment.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_assignments or list_files, and 'for an assignment' makes the scope precise. It leaves no ambiguity about the operation.

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 usage is implied by the description: call it when you need submissions tied to a specific course and assignment. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as using list_assignments when you need assignments rather than submissions.

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