Retrieves the student submission list for a specified homework, categorized as submitted, not submitted, or rejected, with student name, ID, submission time, current score, and report ID.
取得指定作業之學生繳交名單（支援已繳交、未繳交、退回重寫分類，包含學生姓名、學號、繳交時間、現有分數與 reportId）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | 名單分類 | submitted |
| homeworkId | Yes | 作業 ID（例如 70800） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned fields per student (name, student ID, submission time, current score, reportId), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permission requirements, pagination, or behavior for empty rosters or invalid homeworkId.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and scope stated first and detail in a parenthetical. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.
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 read-only two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, category filtering, and returned fields. Only pagination/volume behavior and permission expectations are missing, which is a minor gap.
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%, so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the meaning of the three status categories and confirms homeworkId scoping, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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 and resource: '取得指定作業之學生繳交名單' (retrieve the student submission roster for a specified homework). Scope is clear enough to distinguish it from list_homeworks or get_homework_detail, though it does not explicitly name the overlapping sibling list_unsubmitted_students.
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?
Usage is only implied: the parenthetical mentioning the submitted/not-submitted/rejected categories suggests when the status parameter matters, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over list_unsubmitted_students or audit_homework_submission, which cover adjacent ground.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.