RigorLoop Research Bounties

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable context by naming the side effects: triggering the payout workflow on accept and opening a dispute review on contest. It also notes the same-agent-key prerequisite. 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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with action verbs ('Accept', 'contest'), and contains no filler. Every phrase carries meaning, effectively communicating both usage modes and side effects.

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 description covers both actions, their side effects, the conditional requirement for a reason, and a key prerequisite (same agent key). Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The tool's conditional logic is adequately explained.

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 low (25%), but the description partially compensates by implying research_bounty_id refers to the bounty created by the same agent key, deliverable_id to the submitted result, and reason to contest justification. It doesn't explain constraints like minLength for reason or UUID formats, leaving some gaps.

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's dual functionality: accepting a result (triggering payout workflow) or contesting it (opening dispute review). It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource ('submitted human-expert result for a Research Bounty'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_submitted_result.

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 provides clear context: it applies to submitted expert results on bounties created by the same agent key, and covers both accept and contest actions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, stopping short of a 5.

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 are all false, providing limited safety information. The description adds valuable context: it is a one-time operation, Supabase Auth verifies ownership, and no financial authorization occurs. This goes beyond the fields and clarifies behavioral expectations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and adds a meaningful security clarification without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema and sibling tools present, the description covers the essential behavior and safety traits. The only missing piece is an explicit prerequisite like 'call after start_agent_registration', though the schema's message description partially covers this.

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 schema already provides descriptions for message and signature (67% coverage), and the description reinforces the concept of an exact signed challenge. However, challengeId is only described as 'uuid' in the schema and not explained in the description, leaving a gap for that parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('EIP-4361 challenge', 'RigorLoop agent key'), and the phrase 'once' indicates a one-time completion step. It distinguishes itself from sibling start_agent_registration by focusing on verification and key return.

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 the tool is used to complete an agent registration flow and includes a helpful security note that the signature does not authorize payment or transfer. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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?

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds rich behavioral context: it verifies size, type, and SHA-256 checksum, registers the file as private and visible only to the selected expert, and states that retries return the same registered file. This provides meaningful operational details that annotations alone do not cover. No contradiction with the 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word adds value. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details, and the retry behavior is stated concisely. This is well-structured and appropriately sized.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and annotations, the description covers the key aspects: verification steps, privacy scope, and idempotency. It does not explain failure modes, but the output schema likely handles error responses. The workflow connection to prepare_bounty_file_upload is implied through the name and content, and the sibling list is available for additional context. This is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'uploaded object' (likely referring to upload_id) and 'selected expert' (contextually tied to research_bounty_id), but it does not explicitly map either parameter by name. The tool name and parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds only partial semantic clarity, leaving room for misinterpretation about which ID does what.

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 actions: 'Verify the uploaded object's exact size, normalized type, and SHA-256 checksum, then register it as a private source file...' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare_bounty_file_upload, which focuses on preparation rather than completion. The title 'Complete Private Research Bounty File Upload' further reinforces the finalization role.

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 the tool is used to finalize a previously uploaded file by verifying and registering it, with a note that retries are safe. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the workflow context is clear from the 'Complete' title and the verification/registration verbs. This is better than merely implying usage, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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 signal idempotency (idempotentHint=true) and non-read-only behavior (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds valuable context by confirming the draft is stored under the account controlling the Bearer agent key and by clarifying that no payment or publication occurs. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not disclose every potential side effect (e.g., validation, storage limits).

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence contributes meaningful information (what it does, what it doesn't do, and retry/next-step guidance). No wasted words.

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 description situates the tool within a workflow (draft before payment) and clarifies side-effect boundaries. With an output schema present, return value details are not required. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., authenticated agent) or validation behavior, but overall it provides sufficient context for a draft-creation 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?

The schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description needs to compensate by explaining key parameters. However, it only mentions the idempotency key and 'identical input'; it provides no added meaning for major required parameters like title, bounty_amount_cents, review_window_days, or requested_deliverables. The description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Store') and clearly identifies the resource ('an AI-authored Research Bounty draft'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly stating what it does NOT do (create Checkout, charge a wallet, publish) and by referencing the separate funding step.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it states the draft creation is a separate step from payment ('call fund_research_bounty separately when ready to pay') and gives clear retry instructions ('Repeat only with the same idempotency key and identical input'). This effectively tells when to use this tool and when to use an alternative.

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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral nuances: the tool returns instructions rather than executing a transfer, never claims success before reconciliation, and prefers x402 when enabled. This adds meaningful context about async settlement and ownership constraints, which is not available from annotations alone.

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, payment method, and settlement behavior. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no redundant 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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns (funding instructions), the precondition (draft ownership), the payment routing behavior, and the reconciliation safeguard. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema description covers idempotency_key well, but research_bounty_id lacks a description. The tool description partially compensates by explaining that the ID must refer to a draft created by the same key, adding ownership context. However, it does not elaborate on format or relationship to other IDs, so it adds moderate value 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('owner-bound Base/USDC funding instructions') tied to a clear precondition ('draft created by this same Bearer agent key'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_funding_quote or create_bounty_draft by focusing on funding instructions rather than quotes or creation.

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 provides clear usage context: it is only for drafts created by the same agent key, which implicitly rules out other scenarios. It also mentions payment method selection (x402 preferred, Stripe fallback), giving guidance on how to proceed. However, it does not explicitly reference alternative tools or state when not to use, so it stops short of a 5.

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 indicate read-only and idempotent behavior; the description adds valuable detail about the fee formula, rail selection (x402 vs Stripe-hosted USDC), and explicitly states it never creates a payment. This is context beyond annotations, with no contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful detail (fee, currency, rail condition, safety guarantee) with no redundancy or 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the core calculation, conditional behavior, and safety profile, making it complete for this relatively simple quote 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 coverage is 50% with payment_method having a description and bounty_amount_cents having constraints. The description adds context about the 10% fee but does not directly explain parameter formats or relationships. It provides some value but does not fully compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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 calculates a fee and total for an expert reward, specifying the 10% RigorLoop fee and Base/USDC currency. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fund_research_bounty by explicitly noting it is a quote-only, read-only operation.

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 this is the correct tool for obtaining a pre-payment quote, especially with the conditional logic for x402 vs Stripe. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it before funding.

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 idempotentHint=true, setting safety expectations. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing the exact status fields returned and the ownership constraint, which is not captured by annotations. No contradiction noted.

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 no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, scope, and output details.

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 one-parameter read tool with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what data it returns, and who can use it. No critical information appears 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description partially compensates by clarifying that research_bounty_id refers to a bounty created by the same agent key, adding a semantic restriction absent from the schema. The parameter name is inherently descriptive, further aiding understanding.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'Research Bounty', specifying exact data points (funding state, failure state, timestamps, permanent URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_funding_quote or search_research_bounties.

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 implied through the read verb and resource, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It includes a scope restriction ('created by this same Bearer agent key') but no comparison to sibling tools.

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 the operation read-only and non-destructive, so the bar is lowered. The description adds meaningful context: the download URL is 'short-lived' and private, and it includes an ownership constraint. This goes beyond 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 a single dense sentence that lists multiple pieces of information without redundancy. It is not as front-loaded as a two-sentence structure would be, but every clause contributes meaning and there is 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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It comprehensively lists the components of the result (assignment, deliverable, metadata, dispute state, allowed decisions, URL) and notes the short-lived nature of the URL. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but the one-parameter, read-only nature makes it fairly complete.

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. It does so by implying that research_bounty_id refers to a bounty 'created by this same Bearer agent key', adding an ownership constraint not visible in the schema. However, it does not explicitly describe the parameter's format or provide examples beyond the schema's uuid format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('submitted deliverable identifier and metadata', 'active Platform Dispute Review state', 'download URL') for a Research Bounty. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by scoping to bounties 'created by this same Bearer agent key', which is unique to this tool.

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 conveys when to use the tool (to retrieve submission details after a bounty has been created and presumably after submission), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to siblings like get_research_bounty_status. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it restricts results to owner-visible applications for bounties created by the same Bearer key, and discloses the specific return fields (request identifier, offer, expert snapshot, selectability). This goes beyond the safety profile provided by 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, and includes a concise list of return values. Every word earns its place, with no redundant 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?

Given the single parameter, read-only nature, and existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, scope, and return fields. It lacks details on pagination/ordering, but that is not critical for a simple listing tool. The output schema is present, so return values need not be fully enumerated in the description.

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 0%, so the description does not explicitly explain the research_bounty_id parameter. However, the single parameter's purpose is clear from the tool name and the description's reference to 'a Research Bounty created by this same Bearer agent key', which implies the ID must belong to an owned bounty. The schema provides the type (uuid) and required status, but the description adds the ownership constraint that was not in 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('owner-visible applications and direct-request responses for a Research Bounty') with a specific ownership constraint ('created by this same Bearer agent key'). It differentiates from siblings like search_research_bounties by focusing on applications for bounties the agent owns.

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 context (use to list applications for a bounty you created) but provides no explicit 'when to use' vs alternatives. It does not reference sibling tools like search_research_bounties or get_research_bounty_status, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it describes the response contents (funding, applications, assignment, result state, next recommended tool call) and warns not to assume email access. This enriches the agent's understanding of operational expectations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then supplementary usage guidance. Every clause adds value; there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers usage timing, return contents, and operational boundaries. It fully equips the agent to decide when to call and what to expect.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters, referencing an implicit Bearer key without adding unnecessary parameter noise.

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 returns the durable work queue for Research Bounties associated with the current Bearer agent key. It distinguishes from siblings like search_research_bounties by specifying 'exact Bearer agent key' and 'durable work queue', making the purpose 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?

It explicitly lists trigger conditions: after funding, on agent start/resume, on controller alert, or at approved intervals. It also provides a stopping condition ('stop routine checks after completion or cancellation'), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use 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?

Beyond annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: the URL is short-lived and owner-bound, the object remains private, is never executed or extracted by RigorLoop, and must be finalized. These details significantly aid an agent in understanding side effects and prerequisites.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and includes only high-value qualifiers about lifecycle, ownership, and privacy.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description covers the lifecycle (short-lived, must finalize), ownership constraints, privacy guarantees, and the required next step. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 33%, and the description doesn't explain individual parameters like size_bytes, checksum_sha256, or kind. It does add context about the source file and same-agent-key ownership, which helps interpret research_bounty_id, but most parameter semantics rely on self-explanatory names.

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 action ('Create'), the resource ('short-lived owner-bound upload URL'), and the scope ('one private source file on a draft created by the same Bearer agent key'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool complete_bounty_file_upload by explicitly mentioning the required finalization step.

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 says the upload must be finalized with complete_bounty_file_upload and scopes usage to drafts created by the same Bearer agent key, providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is strong enough.

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 indicate a non-read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds a security warning about sensitive data ('Do not include agent keys, Bearer tokens...') and notes the feedback is 'authenticated', providing context beyond annotations. No contradiction exists between description and 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?

Three purposeful sentences: function, security warning, fallback. No redundant or filler content; the most important information (what it does) appears first.

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 an output schema present and annotations providing safety profile, the description covers purpose, security constraints, and fallback alternatives. It lacks details on authentication requirements or what 'unavailable' means, but these are minor gaps.

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 only 38% (3 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description does not clarify parameters like operation, severity, or details; it only warns about content security. This is insufficient to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 explicitly states 'Submit authenticated MCP, API, payment, or usability feedback to RigorLoop' with a clear verb and resource. This is decisively distinct from sibling tools like create_bounty_draft or get_funding_quote, which focus on bounty/funding workflows.

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 explicit fallback guidance: 'If this operation is unavailable, use POST /api/v1/agent/feedback or https://rigorloop.com/support.' This tells the agent when to use alternatives. It also enumerates the feedback categories, indicating the intended scope of use.

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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful constraints: the bounded 200-item search window and the guarantee that private questions, files, applicant data, and payment identifiers are never returned. This goes beyond the 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. It efficiently conveys scope and privacy limitations.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail return fields. It covers the key usage context (public, funded, most recent, bounded window) and explicitly states what is excluded. This is complete for a read-only search 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 80%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds context about the 200-bounty window, which indirectly explains offset limits, but it doesn't elaborate on individual parameters further. 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches the 200 most recently opened public, funded Research Bounties. It uses the specific verb 'Search' and names the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, fund, or manage bounties.

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 use for read-only discovery of public marketplace data, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. It doesn't name sibling tools as substitutes, so guidance is mostly implicit.

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 description adds valuable context beyond the annotations by stating that selection creates an assignment and closes competing offers, which elaborates on the destructiveHint annotation. It also introduces the 'same agent key' constraint. No contradictions with annotations were found.

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 concise sentences front-load the primary action and include only essential details: the core effect, the critical constraint, and the identifier source. There is no redundancy or 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 selection tool with an output schema, the description covers the main behavioral effect, a key prerequisite (funded, same agent key), and the identifier source. It omits direct explanation of research_bounty_id and the required confirm_selection flag, but the schema covers the latter, leaving only a small 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?

Only application_request_id is semantically explained ('identifier returned by RigorLoop'); research_bounty_id has no description, and confirm_selection relies on the schema's const true description. With schema coverage at 33%, the description insufficiently compensates for the two undocumented parameters.

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 identifies the action ('accept one selectable application') and the resource ('for a funded Research Bounty created by this same agent key'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_bounty_applications and accept_or_contest_result by explaining the selection outcome and closing of competing offers.

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 the tool is used after obtaining an application request identifier from RigorLoop for a self-created, funded bounty, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. The 'same agent key' constraint provides context, but exclusions are absent.

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 description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the challenge is short-lived, the operation is public, and it creates no payment. Annotations are neutral (all false), and the description does not contradict them. It does not disclose failure modes or expiration handling, but the 'short-lived' and 'exact message' details are helpful.

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 two sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds critical procedural context. Every word earns its place.

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 are covered. The description covers the essential flow (create challenge, sign, complete via sibling) and important constraints (short-lived, public, no payment). It does not mention optional params or the HTTPS callback requirement, but the schema already documents those. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a first-step 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 50% (3 of 6 params have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond referencing 'Base wallet', which aligns with the walletAddress schema. It does not compensate for the undocumented optional parameters (label, clientName, clientVersion), leaving gaps in understanding.

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 a specific action ('Create a short-lived EIP-4361 challenge') targeting a specific resource ('Base wallet'). It distinguishes this from the sibling tool complete_agent_registration by framing it as the first step in a two-step flow, making the purpose 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 provides a usage sequence: 'Sign the exact returned message, then call complete_agent_registration.' It also clarifies public access requirements (no payment, no Google/email). It does not mention explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the sequential context is strong enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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