list_submissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'grade/submission status' but does not clarify whether it returns all submissions or only graded ones, nor does it mention pagination, permissions, or any side effects. For a read-like list operation, the lack of explicit safety statements is a gap.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it omits important contextual details. This is concise but not to the point of under-specification; it's acceptable for the limited purpose it states.

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 specificity and the existence of sibling tools, the description should explain when to use it and what distinguishes it from related list tools. It does not. The output schema likely covers return values, so that is not an issue, but the lack of usage guidance and behavioral caveats makes it incomplete for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention course_identifier or assignment_id at all. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic detail about their expected format or relationship, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 ('List'), a resource ('submissions'), and a scope ('for an assignment'), and adds that it includes grade/submission status. This clearly differentiates it from ungraded/missing variants, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings. It's clear and concise.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_ungraded_submissions or list_missing_submissions. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer when this general list is appropriate.

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