canvas_get_submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the return contents (rubric assessment, grader comments) and the userId defaulting to 'self', going beyond what annotations provide.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place, with no redundant detail.

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-only tool with annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns and a key default behavior. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently clarifies the tool's purpose and basic behavior for straightforward usage.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented courseId and assignmentId. It partially does by explaining the userId default, but the other two parameters remain semantically under-specified. The description adds some value but does not fully cover the gap.

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 ('Get') and resource ('single submission'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling list tools. It also specifies what the submission includes (rubric assessment and grader comments), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies this tool is for fetching one specific submission rather than listing multiple submissions, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear enough but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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