list_submissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the action (list), the scope (per assignment), and output fields (student name, score, status, timestamp), but omits details such as pagination, sorting, filtering, or authorization requirements. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by the specific output fields. No redundant information or fluff.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description partially compensates by listing some returned fields, but it omits potential additional fields (e.g., submission ID, user ID), pagination behavior, or edge cases like deleted users. For a simple list tool, it is adequate but leaves room for improvement in completeness.

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 three parameters have descriptions in the schema, providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no new information about parameters beyond the schema, aside from implicitly confirming the assignment_id works for linked submissions, which is already stated. Baseline 3 applies since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the tool's purpose as listing submissions for an assignment, scoped to course and assignment, and specifies the returned fields. It differentiates itself from course- or user-level submission tools by mentioning graded discussions and New Quizzes, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like download_submissions, submission_summary, or list_missing_submissions. The description only implies usage for listing submissions, with no exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations.

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