submission_summary

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It states the output (counts of graded, ungraded, not submitted) and implies a read-only operation, but does not clarify edge cases like whether submissions with no grade are considered 'ungraded' or how 'not submitted' is determined, leaving some ambiguity.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes the alternative. Every word contributes, with no fluff. Excellent conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return content (counts of three categories). It omits the exact field names or data types of the output, and lacks context on how counts are derived, but for a simple summary tool with clear parameter scope, it is largely complete.

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 100% for both parameters (course ID and assignment ID), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter details, relying on the schema. This is acceptable but not extra helpful.

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 provides a 'quick overview of submission status' with counts of graded, ungraded, and not submitted. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `list_submissions` for individual details, satisfying the verb+resource requirement.

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 an explicit alternative: 'For individual submission details, use list_submissions instead.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (overview counts) versus the sibling, providing clear usage context.

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