Get Missing Submissions

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which are consistent with the description's read-only nature. The description does not contradict the annotations, but it provides no additional behavioral details (e.g., what 'missing submissions' means, whether it returns assignments from all courses).

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key verb and resource. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it could benefit from a brief note on scope.

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 lack of parameters and output schema, the description is adequate for a simple read-only tool. However, it lacks context on what constitutes 'missing submissions' (e.g., no submissions vs. ungraded) and how results are scoped (e.g., all courses vs. current course).

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is fully documented (100% coverage). The description adequately covers the only implicit parameter (the current user), so no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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: retrieving assignments with missing submissions for the current user. It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like list_submissions or get_todo_items, though it could be more explicit about the context (e.g., within a course).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus others. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer its scope from the name alone.

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