get_my_submission

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds that the result includes attempts used and scopes to 'your own' submission, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, error conditions, or rate limits. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the action, resource scope, and a key output detail.

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 read-only tool with full schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scoping. However, it misses an explicit distinguishing note from sibling tools like get_my_submission_status, which would make it more complete. This is a minor gap.

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 100% because both parameters (course_identifier and assignment_id) have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no further parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning 'assignment' in the text. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('your own submission for an assignment') and an additional detail ('including attempts used'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_submissions (all submissions) and get_my_submission_status (likely just status).

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 phrase 'your own' implies the intended use case (retrieving the current user's submission), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_my_submission_status or list_submissions. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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