list_submissions

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is read-only. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond the name, such as what data is returned (grades, student names) or if pagination is involved.

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 very concise with one sentence plus parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, read-only, output schema exists), the description is adequate but lacks scoping details (e.g., all submissions or filtered?) and does not address differentiation from siblings. It meets minimum viability.

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%, but the description provides meaningful explanations for both parameters: course_identifier as 'Course code or Canvas ID' and assignment_id as 'Canvas assignment ID'. This adds value beyond the schema titles.

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 it lists submissions for a specific assignment, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_my_submission_status or list_assignments.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_my_submission_status for own submissions). There is no exclusion criteria or context for usage.

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