Get Missing Submissions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description only needs to add behavioral nuance. It adds a current-user scoping detail and 'get' is consistent with a read operation, but it does not mention response shape, pagination, or auth context. For a zero-parameter read-only tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, redundancy, or wasted words. Every word earns its place.

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 no-argument read-only tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the returned entity type and the scope. The only real gap is that with no output schema, it does not hint at the shape of the returned data, such as whether assignments are grouped by course or include submission-status details.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter semantics are needed because there is nothing for the agent to configure or misinterpret.

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 states a precise operation ('Get'), a concrete resource ('assignments'), and qualifying conditions ('missing submissions', 'for the current user'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from generic submission-list or grade-list tools.

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 'for the current user' qualifier implies a personal missing-work scenario, giving some usage context. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over conceptually adjacent siblings like get_todo_items or list_submissions_awaiting_grading, and it names no exclusions.

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