Get Student Submission

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

Goes far beyond readOnlyHint=true: discloses permission requirements, anonymization and PII-scrubbing behavior, hard truncation limits (12,000 body chars, 10 comments at 800 chars each), explicit exclusions (files, URLs, media, history, private/draft comments, read-status updates), and a prompt-injection warning about untrusted submitted content.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then layers permissions, anonymization, truncation limits, exclusions, and the untrusted-data warning. Dense but every sentence contributes; minor tightening possible in the anonymization sentence.

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 output schema, the description does the work of explaining return contents, truncation, and exclusions thoroughly, plus security and permission context. The main gap is parameter semantics, which leaves an agent guessing about ID formats.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It never explains course_identifier, assignment_id, or student_id formats, nor that each accepts string or integer. Context implies what the IDs refer to, but not enough to invoke confidently with unusual identifiers.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (one student's current submission text and visible text comments) with clear scope. The 'one student's' framing distinguishes it from list_submissions (many) and get_my_submission (own submission) without needing to name them.

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?

Gives prerequisites (explicit manage_grades permission in this course, plus Canvas individual-read authorization) and conditional guidance for ENABLE_DATA_ANONYMIZATION ('Disable it only under your institution's approved student-data handling policy'). It does not explicitly route the agent between sibling tools like list_submissions vs get_my_submission, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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