List Quiz Submissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no pagination behavior, result scope, filtering, or whether unsubmitted/draft attempts are included, which matters given the large family of submission-related siblings.

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 with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of its information gaps rather than a virtue of tight editing.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is minimally sufficient, and no output schema means return details needn't be explained. Still, it omits any note on result scope or paging, which an agent listing potentially hundreds of submissions would benefit from.

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%, with both course_id and quiz_id documented as Canvas IDs, so the baseline is 3. The description only implies the quiz scoping and adds no format or behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a clear verb and resource ("List all submissions for a quiz"), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns. However, it offers no differentiation from the many neighboring submission tools (list_submissions, list_submissions_awaiting_grading, get_quiz_submission_answers), so the agent must infer the boundary from the parameter names.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over list_submissions or get_quiz_submission_answers, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the name and schema.

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