canvas_list_missing_submissions

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

The description discloses behavioral specifics beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it targets past-due unsubmitted assignments, and it can operate on a linked observee. It also surfaces the conditional requirement for courseIds. The readOnlyHint is respected and the description adds meaningful context about the operation's scope.

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, with the main purpose front-loaded and the conditional observee requirement placed second. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality and a key edge case. It does not describe return format or pagination, but these are not critical for a simple listing operation and the readOnlyHint provides safety context.

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 description explains the relationship between observeeId and courseIds ('For an observee, courseIds is required'), which adds useful conditional meaning. However, it does not elaborate on what observeeId itself represents beyond 'a linked observee', and schema coverage is only 50%, so the description only partially compensates for the underexplained observeeId parameter.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('past-due unsubmitted assignments'), and identifies the primary user context ('for the user (or a linked observee)'). This distinguishes it from siblings like canvas_list_recent_submissions (which lists recent submissions) and canvas_get_submission (which retrieves a single submission).

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 gives clear context for use (finding past-due unsubmitted work) and an explicit prerequisite for observees ('For an observee, courseIds is required'). However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, leaving some inference to the agent.

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