get_assign_submissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default status filter and the optional per-user grading status, which adds useful context. However, it does not describe the return format, whether it modifies data (though 'get' implies read-only), or any access requirements. This leaves gaps for the agent.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key option. It contains no redundant information and is appropriately concise.

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 read tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is minimally sufficient. It covers the main behavioral options but omits details about the response structure and the relationship between user_ids and include_status_per_user (though the schema covers that). The absence of output schema raises the need for more description, which is not fully met.

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 coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds the default 'submitted' and the notion of per-user grading status, which aligns with include_status_per_user. It does not significantly extend beyond the schema, which already documents assign_id, user_ids, and include_status_per_user.

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 it retrieves submissions for an assignment, with a default status filter of 'submitted'. The name 'get_assign_submissions' reinforces this. The optional per-user grading status is also mentioned, adding scope without ambiguity.

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 implies usage for fetching assignment submissions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The context of sibling tools (e.g., get_grades, get_completion) makes the purpose clear, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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