canvas_list_submissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the metadata-only scope and the semantics of the filter flags, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or rate limits. Output schema presumably covers the return shape, which keeps this at an adequate rather than weak level.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, one routing sentence, then a compact Args block; every line earns its place given 0% schema coverage. Minor redundancy exists only because the Args block repeats parameter names already in the schema, which is justified here.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the metadata-only framing plus full parameter semantics make the definition callable as written. Missing pagination and permission behavior keep it from being fully complete for a list endpoint.

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 compensate, and it does: all four parameters are explained in the Args block, including the fallback to CANVAS_DEFAULT_COURSE_ID and the meaning of include_ungraded. It omits stating only_submitted's default, which the schema sets to false, leaving a small gap.

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 ('List') and resource ('submissions for an assignment') and enumerates the returned fields (status, score, timestamps, lateness). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling canvas_get_submission by declaring it is metadata only, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-not: use canvas_get_submission for a student's actual work, implying this tool is for roster-level status views. It does not address other plausible siblings (canvas_download_submissions, canvas_get_gradebook), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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