get_assignment_submissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned (submitted files, timestamps, feedback, grades), which is useful, but it does not cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). The description adds value but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a list of data returned and example use cases. Every sentence earns its place by adding clarity and context without redundancy, 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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it explains what the tool does, what data it returns, and when to use it. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of returned data) and behavioral aspects like error handling, which would enhance completeness for a tool with no annotations or output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (orgUnitId and assignmentId) with descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how assignmentId relates to get_assignments. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('user's submissions for an assignment'), and it distinguishes from siblings like get_assignments (which lists assignments) or get_my_grades (which shows overall grades) by focusing on submission details for a specific assignment.

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 for when to use this tool by listing example questions it can answer (e.g., 'Did I submit this assignment?', 'What grade did I get?'), which implicitly guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as get_my_grades for broader grade overviews.

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