get_submission

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavior: it returns specified fields (including enum status, nullable confidence, exercise chain), and it states the crucial constraint that only the current pair's submission works—other or nonexistent submission_ids return NOT_FOUND. This goes well beyond a bare schema.

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?

Although a single long sentence, the description is densely packed and well-organized with slashes, enumerations, and an em-dash. Every clause adds functional information—return fields, statuses, nullability, scoping, and error behavior—with no filler.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description fully compensates: it lists all return fields, specifies enum values, notes nullable confidence, explains the exercise chain, and discloses the NOT_FOUND behavior. It also positions the tool in a larger grading workflow, making it complete for its 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 already fully describes the single parameter (submission_id, required, sub_ prefix, must belong to current pair). The tool description essentially restates the 'current pair' constraint without adding new semantic nuance. With 100% schema coverage, 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 ('读回' / read back) and resource (a learner's submission), listing the exact fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing it as the read-back side for grading and review, separate from get_exercise and grade_exercise.

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 explicit context for when to use: it is for '批改与复盘' (grading and review), and it instructs to pair with get_exercise to fetch reference_answer then grade_exercise. It doesn't list exclusions but clearly frames the workflow and complementary tools.

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