get_submission

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 only says 'Get', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention permissions, possible errors, whether a submission may be absent, or what the response contains.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, keeping the definition easy to scan without unnecessary elaboration.

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 low-complexity getter with three required parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps such as return format, possible null submissions, and permission requirements.

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 covers 100% of the parameters, but the descriptions are minimal ('The user/student ID', etc.) and add little beyond the property names. The tool description itself adds no further semantic guidance about parameter formats or relationships, so a 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 a specific action (get) and resource (a student submission for a Canvas assignment). The word 'specific' helps differentiate it from list_submissions, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with 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?

No guidance is given about when to use get_submission versus list_submissions or grade_submission. The intended use is implied by 'specific', but there are no explicit conditions or alternatives, so the agent must infer based on the schema and sibling list.

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