get_assignment_submissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only 'list' operation and specifies the return format ('JSON array of submissions with status, dates, and content'). It does not disclose permissions, edge cases, or any side effects, but for a simple read tool the basic transparency is adequate.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, an Args section with the necessary clarification, and a Returns summary. Every element earns its place with no 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 single-parameter list tool with an existing output schema, the description covers the operation, the critical parameter distinction, and the return summary. It lacks guidance on when to use it, but is otherwise sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema only provides type and title for assignment_id, but the description adds a crucial semantic clarification: 'The assignment instance ID (not course module ID).' This prevents a likely misuse and fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('submissions for a specific assignment'), making it distinct from siblings like list_assignments or get_grades_report based on the meaning of 'submissions'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternative 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_grades_report or save_assignment_grade. It only states the tool's function without exclusions or contextual triggers.

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