read_my_submission_file

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: ownership verification via current-user submission history, the ability to read/index/download, and that group submission files are included. It does not contradict annotations. It could disclose more about what 'index' means or download behavior, but it adds value beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and resource are front-loaded, the ID source is stated, and the ownership constraint is included. Every sentence earns its place.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, where IDs come from, and ownership constraints. It doesn't explain the return format or the difference between read/index/download modes, but the annotations cover safety (idempotent, non-destructive) and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 57%, with four required ID parameters described as 'Exact Brightspace numeric identifier from another tool.' The description adds the source of these IDs (get_assignment) and clarifies the ownership scope, but it does not explain the semantics of offset, maxChars, or download beyond what the schema's defaults and types imply. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap but doesn't fully explain all parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Read, index or download') and resource ('one of your previously submitted files'), and explicitly scopes it to the user's own submissions including group submissions. It also names the source of IDs (get_assignment), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_assignment_attachment or read_group_locker_file.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: to read/index/download previously submitted files, and it references get_assignment for obtaining IDs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the ownership scoping ('your current-user submission history') provides clear context that this is for the user's own submissions, not others' files.

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