moodle_list_submissions

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is free. The description earns credit by decoding the state machine (new = not submitted, reopened = new attempt opened) and clarifying that status narrows the list while counts summarizes everyone — behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it stops short of pagination or volume limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and return fields, and compact at roughly three sentences. The phrase 'counts summarizes all participants' is a minor blemish because no counts parameter or output is defined in the schema, making that clause slightly confusing rather than useful.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of naming the fields returned and describing the filter's effect on the result set. It is largely sufficient for a two-parameter read tool, with the ambiguity around 'counts' being the only notable gap.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description only restates that the status filter narrows the list. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the semantic load, including the crucial assignmentId-vs-cmid distinction.

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 names the resource (assignment participants) and enumerates the returned fields (status, submission time, needs-grading flag, current grade), so an agent knows exactly what this tool yields. It lacks an explicit verb (e.g. 'list') and a stated scope, but the closing contrast with moodle_get_submission makes the boundary unambiguous.

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 sentence 'moodle_get_submission returns one participant's full submission' implicitly routes the agent: use this for the roster, the sibling for a single person. However, it never states when-not to use it, nor does it mention siblings like moodle_list_assignments (for ids) explicitly as prerequisites despite the schema referencing it.

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