List Gradebook History Submissions

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

The readOnlyHint is true, and the description's 'List' implies a read operation without side effects. The description adds context about what is listed (versioned submission history) beyond the annotation, which is helpful, though no additional behavioral caveats are mentioned.

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 conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides a sufficient expectation of the result (versioned submission history). It does not specify pagination or return format, but for a list operation this is acceptable. The context of gradebook history is adequately covered.

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 already describes all four parameters (date, course_id, grader_id, assignment_id), giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameters beyond restating the filters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (list), the resource (versioned submission history), and the specific filters (one grader, one assignment, specific date). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_gradebook_history_days, get_gradebook_history_day, and get_gradebook_history_feed.

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 indicates its own scope but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the other gradebook history tools. It would benefit from mentioning that it is for a targeted lookup of a specific assignment and grader on a given day, whereas other tools are for day summaries or broader feeds.

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