List Submissions

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

Given that readOnlyHint and openWorldHint are true, the description adds context by noting the default behavior of including 'submission_comments', which isn't captured elsewhere. It does not introduce contradictions. The description adds context about the 'include' default and mentions the possibility of filtering, which is behaviorally transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and packs in useful parameters and default behavior without fluff. Each sentence adds value.

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 read-only, open-world annotations, the description covers the primary use case, filter options, and default includes. It could potentially mention pagination or ordering, but those may not be necessary. The tool has no output schema, so return-value details might be helpful, but the description is complete for the core functionality.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to re-explain them. The description does mention filters, but the schema already provides clear descriptions. Since the schema covers 100% of parameters, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add extra meaning 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List all submissions for an assignment') and differs from siblings like get_submission (which retrieves a single submission), and related functions like list_submission_comments_needing_attention. It is distinct from the broader 'list_assignments' or 'get_my_submissions' siblings.

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 explicitly mentions using 'include' to attach related objects and filtering with 'student_ids', 'workflow_state', or 'grading_period_id'. This gives clear context on when to use the tool and what parameters are relevant. It could more strongly note when not to use it, but for a likely common tool, alternatives are somewhat addressed. The description could be stronger with explicit exclusions, but the presence of parameters and the note about 'Defaults to...' establishes clear usage context.

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