List Submissions

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: 'Defaults to including submission_comments.' It also clarifies that the tool lists all submissions rather than a curated subset. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: purpose, usage/filter guidance, and a default-behavior note. Every sentence contributes value and the most important info is front-loaded.

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?

The description and schema together are sufficient for basic invocation, but there is no output schema and no mention of pagination, ordering, or response shape for a tool that can return 'all submissions.' For a broad list operation, that is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the structured field descriptions already carry most parameter meaning. The description repeats a subset of params (include, student_ids, workflow_state, grading_period_id) but adds no genuinely new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List all submissions for an assignment.' This clearly differentiates it from single-item tools like get_submission and from list_submissions_awaiting_grading by emphasizing 'all submissions.' The scope is explicit.

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?

It gives clear usage context by explaining what `include` and filter parameters are for, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_submissions_awaiting_grading or get_submission. Usage is implied rather than directly contrasted.

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