List My Submissions

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

Annotations already establish safety and idempotency, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds genuine behavioral context: role-dependent visibility, the submission state enum, late/grade fields, attachments, and the connection to write tools. This goes well beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and well organized: purpose first, then arguments, then returns. The only mild redundancy is that the Args list repeats schema properties, but the overall text is short, scannable, and free of 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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential usage context: role-based behavior, returned fields, and how to use the submission id afterward. All parameters are covered by the schema, and safety is covered by annotations, so nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 the schema already fully documents course_id, coursework_id, and response_format, including defaults and enum values. The Args section in the description largely mirrors the schema rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'List student submissions for a specific assignment.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling list tools like classroom_list_courses, classroom_list_topics, and classroom_list_coursework. The role-based visibility note ('student... own; teacher... all') further pins down exactly what the tool does and what results to expect.

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 clearly indicates when to use it: with a course_id and coursework_id to list submissions for a particular assignment. It also points the agent to related write tools by noting the submission id is used with turn-in/attachment tools, which helps with subsequent tool selection. It does not explicitly name an alternative list tool or provide a when-not-to-use condition, but among the siblings this is the only submission-list tool.

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