Get grader feedback

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint is true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds value by clarifying the tool excludes submissions without feedback or grade (unless include_empty is used), which is behavioral nuance beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is two sentences that front-load the primary purpose, each sentence earning its place. First sentence states the core function, second adds key usage detail. No fluff.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with only 2 optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main behavior (returns feedback-holding submissions) and the default for course_id. It would be more complete if it mentioned that the tool only applies to graded submissions, but for a read-only list tool with good annotations and clear schema, it suffices.

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 100%, so the description does not need to redefine parameters. However, the description does not add any extra context beyond what the schema already provides for course_id and include_empty, producing a baseline score of 3.

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 the tool retrieves grader comments and rubric assessments, which distinguishes it from other tools in the sibling list like `canvas_get_grades` or `canvas_list_todo`. The verb 'get' and the resource 'feedback on submissions' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly explains when to omit the course_id parameter to check every active course, and notes that only submissions with feedback or a grade are returned. However, it does not exclude when not to use it (e.g., when only grade totals are needed) nor mention alternatives like `canvas_get_grades` which could be a sibling for grade-related needs.

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