get_submission_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what information is returned (submission state, editable, graded, grade, feedback) and the meaning of the status. It correctly implies this is a read-only operation. No side effects are mentioned, but none are expected for a status check.

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 concise at four sentences, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose. Every sentence adds value: source of parameter, list of information, status interpretation. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description comprehensively explains what the tool returns (submission state, editable, graded, grade, feedback) and how to interpret the output. It also provides the parameter source. This is complete for the agent to use effectively.

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 sole parameter `assign_id` is explained by referring to `list_assignments` as its source, adding context beyond the schema. Although the schema coverage is 0%, the description provides enough guidance for an AI agent to understand where to get the value. However, it does not specify constraints or format beyond being an integer.

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 tool's purpose: 'Show the status of YOUR submission for an assignment.' It specifies the verb ('show'), the resource ('submission status'), and the scope ('YOUR submission'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_grades or list_assignments which cover different aspects.

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 tells the user to use the `assign_id` from `list_assignments`, providing a clear source for the parameter. It also explains how to interpret the status ('A status other than 'submitted' means it has not been turned in yet'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but it is implied.

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