get_submissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves submissions but doesn't describe what 'submissions' include (files, grades, comments?), whether it's paginated, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns errors. The phrase 'en el curso configurado' implies some configuration context but doesn't explain how that works.

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 a single, efficient Spanish sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a retrieval tool with documented parameters. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by specifying it's a filtered retrieval operation rather than just 'gets submissions.'

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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'submission' (metadata, content, grades?), the return format, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The context of 'configured course' is mentioned but not explained. With 2 parameters and no structured output documentation, more completeness is needed.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both optional parameters (studentId and assignmentId) with clear descriptions of their optional nature and filtering behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('obtiene' - gets/retrieves) and resource ('entregas de tareas' - assignment submissions) in the configured course. It specifies the scope ('en el curso configurado') which helps distinguish it from general submission tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_submission_content or get_assignments.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like get_submission_content (which presumably retrieves submission details/content) or get_assignments (which retrieves assignment metadata). There's no indication of prerequisites, timing considerations, or use case boundaries.

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