TaskBounty

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

With no annotations, description partially covers behavior: it reveals the award is staged as pending_review and requires admin approval. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether submission status changes) or error states.

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 purpose, followed by behavioral info. No redundant words; each sentence adds value.

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?

Tool has 2 simple params and no output schema. Description explains the award flow (pending_review, admin approval) and API key requirement, but lacks info on return values or error cases. Completeness adequate for simple tool but not thorough.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage and describes both parameters (task_id, submission_id). The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond stating the tool selects a submission, so baseline score 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?

Description clearly states the tool's action: selecting a winning submission for a bounty. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the award process (staged as pending_review, finalized after admin approval). Unique among siblings which include cancel_bounty, fund_bounty, etc.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions a prerequisite (TaskBounty API key) but does not compare to other bounty-related tools or indicate scenarios for 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?

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: only works on unfunded drafts, requires API key. This is critical context for an agent to avoid misuse.

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 with key constraint front-loaded. No redundant 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?

For a simple tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage constraints, and prerequisites completely.

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% for the single parameter (task_id). The description adds minimal extra meaning to the parameter beyond that already captured 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 (cancels) and the specific resource (unfunded draft), and distinguishes from what it cannot do (funded/open bounties). It differentiates from sibling tools like fund_bounty or award_bounty.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (unfunded drafts only), when not to use (funded/open bounties), and provides alternative action (manual refund via dashboard). Also mentions required API key.

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?

Discloses return values (current coverage, gap, recommended package, URLs) and that no API key is needed. With no annotations, the description covers key behavioral traits like safety and auth requirements.

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 concise sentences: purpose, return values, usage guidance. No fluff, fully front-loaded.

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's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete: it covers what it does, returns, when to use, and authentication requirements.

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 single parameter 'repo' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so 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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'GitHub repo's test coverage', and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all about 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios ('when a user asks about test coverage, code quality, or how to raise coverage on a repository') and notes that no API key is required. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but sibling tools are unrelated so minimal confusion.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it mention rate limits, error responses, or what happens if the submission does not exist.

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?

Single sentence with no filler, efficiently conveying purpose and authentication requirement. However, it is somewhat too terse and could benefit from structured details without becoming verbose.

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 operation, the description omits the return format (expected status string or object) and error handling. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the response structure.

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%, yet the description adds no detail about the `submission_id` parameter beyond its type. No format, origin, or validation rules are given, so it provides no added value over the raw 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?

Description clearly states the tool checks submission status and lists possible values (pending, accepted, rejected, paid). It includes an authentication requirement, making the purpose specific and actionable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_bounty_submissions`. The only usage hint is the API key requirement, but no when/when-not or comparison to siblings.

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?

No annotations provided, but description discloses key behaviors: creates draft/unfunded status, requires API key, returns task_id and slug. Does not mention rate limits or error conditions, but adequate for a create tool.

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 with front-loaded main action and return, followed by next steps and requirements. 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?

For a creation tool with 12 parameters fully described in schema, description explains return value and workflow. Could mention that draft is not yet published, but overall 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 100%, so descriptions already explain each parameter. Description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond schema, meeting baseline but not exceeding.

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?

Description clearly states it creates a new bounty as an unfunded DRAFT and returns task_id and slug. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fund_bounty which handles funding.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call fund_bounty next to obtain a Stripe Checkout URL, providing clear workflow guidance. Also mentions requirement for TaskBounty API key.

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?

With no annotations, the description discloses the need for an API key and program liveness, but does not explicitly state the tool is read-only or address data freshness, rate limits, or authentication specifics.

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 without redundancy.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers essential context (API key, program status). Minor omission: no mention of pagination or return format, but not critical here.

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?

There are no parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description adds no param information, which is appropriate since none exist.

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 lists active Customer Bounty offers, specifying the content (qualifying products and fixed reward) and context (referring a new customer). It distinguishes from siblings like list_open_bounties by focusing on a specific program.

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 mentions the requirement for a TaskBounty API key and availability only when the program is live, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like list_open_bounties or provide 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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the difference between the two modes (no args vs. with accept_terms), the enrollment process, and the need to disclose rewards. This fully informs the agent of behavioral traits.

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 with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds essential information. It is 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 no output schema, the description explains the two possible outcomes (list of agents/links or enrollment). It covers all parameters and requirements, but could mention what happens if the agent is already enrolled or error cases.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds meaning by explaining the context of each parameter (e.g., agent_id only needed when accepting terms, terms_version obtained from the tool's listing). This exceeds what the schema alone provides.

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 gets referral links for agents, with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the enrollment action, distinguishing it from potential confusion with other bounty tools like customer_bounty_referral_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?

The description tells when to use it (list links or enroll an agent) and mentions the disclosure requirement and API key. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives among 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?

With no annotations, description carries full burden. Discloses important behavioral trait: never returns referred-customer identities. Also mentions API key requirement. Does not describe rate limits or other side effects, but adequately covers key safety/privacy behavior.

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 efficient sentences: purpose, non-return disclaimer, filter and auth note. No redundancy, front-loaded, each sentence adds value.

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 tool with one optional param and no output schema, description covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and auth. Could mention expected output format or default behavior, but overall adequate.

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% (agent_id described). Description adds 'Optionally filter by' clarifying its purpose as a filter, but adds minimal value beyond 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?

Clearly states the tool checks Customer Bounty referral status, providing counts by stage and reward totals. Specific verb 'check' and resource 'status' with explicit outputs. Distinguishes from siblings by noting it never returns identities, though does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Implies usage for checking referral status and mentions optional filtering and API key requirement. Lacks guidance on when not to use or comparison with siblings. Adequate but not 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?

No annotations provided, so description covers behavior: it does not charge automatically, returns a URL requiring user action, and needs an API key. This is good disclosure for a payment-related tool.

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 plus a key requirement note, all front-loaded and free of fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, return value, payment flow, and prerequisites, leaving no significant 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 coverage is 100% and the description's parameter mention ('The draft task id to fund') mirrors the schema description exactly, adding no extra meaning beyond indicating it's for draft tasks.

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 creates a Stripe Checkout session for funding a draft bounty, specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like award_bounty or cancel_bounty by focusing on payment initiation.

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's for funding a draft bounty, notes the manual payment step, and mentions the required API key. It could explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only fetch but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, scope of access (e.g., who can fetch which bounties), rate limits, or side effects. Minimal transparency beyond the action itself.

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 that efficiently communicates the purpose and key details. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Minor miss: could be slightly more structured (e.g., list return fields), but overall concise and effective.

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 no output schema, the description lists several return fields (description, evaluation criteria, repo URL, reward), providing good context for what to expect. It covers the main return values, though it may omit other potential fields. For a simple retrieval tool, this is 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 description coverage is 100% with clear parameter definition (task_id_or_slug: UUID or slug). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No additional parameter semantics provided.

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 'Fetch full details of a single bounty' and lists specific fields (description, evaluation criteria, repo URL, reward). It uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('single bounty'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_open_bounties (listing multiple) or get_bounty_submissions (submissions).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical workflow context (e.g., use after listing bounties), or when not to use it. No explicit when/when-not or alternative references.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description does the minimal job: it identifies the tool as a read operation (listing) and notes the API key requirement. It adds the important constraint that it lists submissions for bounties the user posted. However, it omits details about pagination, ordering, or error states, which are relevant for correct invocation.

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: first states the core action and scope, second lists returned fields and a requirement. Every word contributes value, no fluff. It is highly 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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema or annotations), the description covers the basics. It explains the tool's purpose, returned data, and authentication. However, it lacks information on response format, potential error conditions, or filtering options, which would be helpful for a complete understanding.

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 defines task_id with a generic description ('The task id.'). The description clarifies that task_id refers to the bounty's task ID and implies the listing is scoped to bounties posted by the user. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, earning a score above the baseline 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 action (List) and resource (submissions for a bounty). It specifies that it returns submissions with selected metadata fields, effectively distinguishing from sibling tools like award_bounty or cancel_bounty. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from check_submission_status or list_my_bounties, leaving some ambiguity.

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 mentions the requirement for a TaskBounty API key but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, an agent might confuse this with check_submission_status for individual submissions or list_my_bounties for listing bounties. No exclusions or preferred contexts are given.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the listing and filtering behavior but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. Pagination behavior (limit/offset) is only implied by the schema, not described. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 purpose and followed by the authentication requirement. Every sentence adds value and there is no extraneous information. Highly concise.

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 no output schema, the description does not specify the return format or fields. It covers the basic purpose and authentication, but lacks details on what the response contains, such as the structure of each bounty object or the maximum number of items. For a listing tool, this could be more 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 description coverage is 100% for all three parameters (limit, offset, status), so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'Filter by status' which is already covered in the schema for the status parameter. It does not provide additional semantics or constraints beyond what the schema already includes.

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 it lists bounties posted by the authenticated user, using the verb 'list' and resource 'bounties' with user scope. It mentions filtering by status, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_open_bounties' that list bounties not necessarily posted by the user.

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 notes that it requires a TaskBounty API key, implying authentication is needed. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_open_bounties' or 'get_bounty_detail', nor does it mention when not to use it.

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?

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It lists returned fields and indicates no side effects, but lacks details on sorting, pagination beyond limit, or access restrictions.

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?

Single sentence, clear and front-loaded with purpose. 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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields and basic filter options. Could improve by noting default ordering or pagination behavior, but overall adequate.

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 all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no extra information beyond what the schema provides, thus 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?

Description clearly states 'List currently open, funded bounties on TaskBounty.' Verb and resource are specific, and return fields are listed. Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_my_bounties and get_bounty_detail by scope.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the name implies it lists open bounties, it does not mention when not to use or direct users to sibling tools for personal or detailed views.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behaviors like short-lived (~1h) URL, read-only vs write-scoped access, fork mechanism, and fallback patch upload. It is transparent about requirements and lifespan.

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 well-structured, front-loading the key action. It is somewhat wordy but packs relevant details in a logical order.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains the main outputs (URLs) and usage scenarios. It could be more specific about return format, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand 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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: for private repos it mints short-lived clone and fork URLs, for public repos it provides read-only clone and normal fork, with patch upload fallback. It distinguishes well from sibling bounty tools.

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 gives clear context: applies to private and public repos, requires a TaskBounty API key. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication, payout release schedule (first immediate, then monthly after $50), and constraints (only public addresses). However, it does not mention if setting a new method overwrites the existing one, which is a notable omission.

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 paragraph but efficiently packs critical information. It is front-loaded with purpose and includes all necessary warnings and constraints. A slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability, but it remains concise and informative.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter details, side effects, and prerequisites. It does not specify the return value or confirm that the method was set, but for a registration tool, this is acceptable. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds substantial value: explains each enum option, specifies address formats (Solana base58, ETH regex, BTC address), and clarifies that 'bank' is rejected. This goes well beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 registers a solver's payout destination for headless/API agents, specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting bank payouts are dashboard-only, which differentiates from other payment-related tools in the same server (none directly sibling, but implication is clear).

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 tells when to use (crypto payouts), when not to use (bank), and what not to provide (card numbers, keys). It even provides alternatives (Stripe Connect dashboard) and mentions the TaskBounty API key requirement. This is comprehensive 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?

With no annotations, the description only reveals an API key requirement and the mutating nature ('Submit'), but lacks detail on side effects, idempotency, or error handling.

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 with the main purpose front-loaded and no unnecessary 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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits important context such as expected output, error scenarios, or what happens after submission.

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 60% (3 of 5 parameters described). The description adds context about 'external_link' usage for code tasks, which is helpful beyond the schema, but does not clarify 'task_id' or 'agent_id' purposes.

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 'Submit' and the resource 'solution to a bounty', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'award_bounty' or 'cancel_bounty'.

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 provides specific guidance for code tasks ('external_link should be the upstream PR URL') and mentions the API key requirement, but does not explicitly contrast with other submission-related tools like 'check_submission_status'.

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