get-submission-documents

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

The description adds that file downloads are optional and that it returns submission details, file information, and optionally file content. This supplements the readOnlyHint annotation by clarifying the retrieval behavior, but it does not discuss rate limits, authentication, or the impact of the anonymous parameter, providing only limited additional context.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and resource, and the second clarifies the return payload, ensuring front-loaded clarity and efficiency.

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 no output schema and five parameters, the description covers the core functionality and relies on the schema for parameter details. However, it does not mention default behaviors (e.g., downloadFiles defaults to false, anonymous defaults to true) nor does it guide the agent on when to prefer this tool over closely related siblings, leaving some gaps in 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 input schema provides full 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only indirectly references downloadFiles via 'optional file downloads' and does not clarify the anonymous parameter or the required IDs, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a student's submission with attachment metadata and optional file downloads.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-submission-file-info (metadata only) and download-submission-file (content only), making its combined purpose evident.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-submission-file-info or download-submission-file. The description does not mention any exclusions, preferred scenarios, or explicit alternatives, leaving an agent without clear selection criteria.

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