Get Submission Peer Reviews

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, signaling a safe read operation. The description reinforces the scoping ('assigned to a specific submission') but doesn't add beyond that. No contradiction; the description provides adequate, if minimal, additional context for a simple read.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action and scope efficiently with zero wasted words. Ideal length for the information conveyed.

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 simple read tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is complete for its purpose. Slight ambiguity remains about whether 'peer reviews assigned to a submission' means reviews on the submission or by the submission's author, keeping it from a 5.

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% (all three parameters documented as Canvas IDs), satisfying the baseline. The description adds the conceptual model—these three IDs together identify one submission—but doesn't need to say more given the schema covers formats.

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 ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('peer reviews assigned to a specific submission'). It's distinct from the sibling 'list_peer_reviews' by scoping to a submission, though it doesn't explicitly call out the distinction.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus the similar sibling 'list_peer_reviews' or other review-related tools like 'get_submission'. The context (siblings) shows ambiguity with list_peer_reviews, but the description provides no exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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