list_ungraded_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. It explains what is returned (ungraded submissions grouped by assignment) but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or mention any limitations (e.g., no side effects, no grading performed). It also omits details like pagination or ordering, though the output schema may cover return shape.

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?

Two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and end with a practical usage hint. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 single-parameter listing tool, the description adequately sets expectations about the returned data (ungraded, grouped by assignment) and the intended workflow. With an output schema present, missing details like exact fields or pagination are acceptable. It is reasonably complete for its simplicity.

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 compensate for the parameter 'course_identifier.' It does not mention this parameter at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning or context about how it is used or what formats are accepted.

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 explicitly states the tool lists every submitted-but-ungraded submission in a course, grouped by assignment. It also frames it as 'the grading queue,' making its purpose immediate and distinct from siblings like list_submissions (all submissions) or list_missing_submissions (missing work).

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 'Start here for what do I need to grade?' clearly indicates the primary use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context implies that other tools handle different listing/grading scenarios. This is clear guidance but not exhaustive.

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