Humanuscrit — HAPP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the return is a static AGENTS.md document with specific sections, which is useful context, but it does not disclose format, size, or any behavioral traits beyond what the annotations and purpose already imply. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 starting with the action and resource ('Renvoie AGENTS.md:') followed by a tight list of contents. Every element earns its place and there is no redundant or filler text.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by enumerating the contents of the returned document, which is the key information an agent needs to decide whether to call it. It is complete enough for a zero-parameter documentation retrieval tool, though it could specify return format or reinforce usage context.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain any parameter semantics, and the empty schema is fully consistent with the no-argument nature of the call.

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 ('Renvoie AGENTS.md') and enumerates the exact content returned (editorial line, submission fields, autonomy levels, licenses, review process). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_stats, get_submission_status, and submit_text, which handle metrics, status, and submission rather than documentation.

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 implies usage by naming the returned document and its sections, so an agent can infer this is the reference/documentation tool. However, it never explicitly states when to call it versus alternatives (e.g., before submit_text to learn submission fields) or any exclusions. Guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-world read. The description adds that the data is published per protocol, which is mild context, but says nothing about aggregation period, freshness, or scope. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact clauses with no filler. The main gap is that the front-loaded content is a noun phrase rather than an action statement, so the purpose is slightly obscured, but it is still efficient.

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 no-parameter read-only stats tool, the description covers what dimensions are returned and confirms protocol-compliant publication. However, it omits when to use it versus get_submission_status and gives no sense of aggregation scope or freshness, which leaves some ambiguity.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly describes the result set rather than trying to explain inputs, and no parameter documentation is needed.

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 enumerates what the tool reports (submissions received, accepted, refused, published; arrivals by discovery channel), which gives some substance. However, it never states a verb like 'retourne' or 'liste', so it reads as a list of data points rather than a clear action. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_submission_status.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_submission_status or get_guidelines. The clause 'Publié conformément au protocole' hints at a public-visibility context but does not tell an agent when to select this tool.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating the concrete status vocabulary (received, in-review, accepted, rejected, published) and the ID format, which tells the agent what to expect back.

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 that names the resource first, then the states, then the input format. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing the possible status values. Combined with a fully documented single parameter and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

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 single submission_id parameter and its pattern are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of the HAPP-<n> format largely repeats the schema pattern and adds no new syntax or semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource (retrieve the status of a submission) and enumerates the possible states, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_stats or submit_text, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as submit_text for writing or get_stats for aggregates. Usage is only implied by the nature of the lookup, which matches a minimum-viable 3 rather than clear guidance.

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

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: it returns an HAPP-<n> identifier and tracking address, imposes a 7-day per-agent rate limit, requires honest autonomy declaration, and states nothing is paid. Annotations already cover the non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description augments this with operational facts.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence carries an operational caveat. Slightly fragmented but cohesive and efficient.

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 submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the response shape (identifier and tracking address), rate limits, honesty requirement, and payment status. Annotations plus schema handle the rest. Minor gap: no detail on what happens after review or failure modes.

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 schema documents all 9 parameters including enums with descriptions. The description only mentions autonomy_level explicitly, adding no syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (submits a French literary text) plus the destination (Humanuscrit human review). Distinguishes itself from siblings (get_guidelines, get_stats, get_submission_status) implicitly, being the only write operation. No explicit sibling comparison, so not a 5.

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?

Provides a per-agent rate constraint (one submission per 7 days) and an honesty requirement about autonomy level, which implicitly tells when this tool applies. No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives routing.

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