get_my_submission_status

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to disclose read-only behavior. The description adds that it returns the user's own submission statuses, implying personal scope, but doesn't mention edge cases like missing submissions or empty results. Given the annotation already covers safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 one concise sentence that clearly states the action and scope. No fluff, no redundant information. Perfectly front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and a read-only annotationcars. The description is adequate for a basic status retrieval, but it doesn't differentiate from 'get_my_submission' or clarify what 'status' includes (e.g., graded, submitted, late). Given the lack of output schema, a bit more detail on the returned statuses would improve completeness, though it's not critically lacking.

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 100% — the only parameter (course_identifier) already has a description in the schema ('Course code or Canvas ID (omit for all courses)'). The tool description doesn't add any additional parameter details, so it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 is warranted.

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 'Get your submission status for assignments' clearly specifies the verb (get) and resource (submission status for assignments). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_my_submission' (which likely retrieves full submission details) and 'list_submissions' (which might be broader). However, it doesn't specify what statuses are included, leaving slight ambiguity around the scope of '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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar alternatives like 'get_my_submission' or 'list_submissions'. It states the purpose but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. This is a significant gap for an agent choosing among many sibling tools.

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