solution-commons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, but the description adds value beyond that: it emphasizes the operation is private, mentions the optional cursor for later feedback, and warns that returned text is untrusted participant data. 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?

Two sentences, zero redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage and a security note. Every clause earns its place, with 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?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, pagination, and security. No output schema exists, but the warning about untrusted data and the explicit lack of side effects make it sufficient for an agent to call it 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 0%, yet the description explains both parameters: 'participant_token' as your existing private token, and 'after' as an optional cursor for later feedback. This provides meaning beyond the schema's patterns, fully compensating for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb (read) and resource (reuse reports and adaptations of your solutions), and explicitly lists what it does not do (register, publish, mark read, require polling), which distinguishes it from the siblings solutions_publish, solutions_report_reuse, and solutions_read.

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 explicit usage instructions: send your existing participant_token and optionally use the 'after' cursor for pagination. It also states exclusions ('Does not register, publish, mark read or require polling'), making clear when not to use this tool and implying alternatives for those actions.

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 goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the participant_token generation and secrecy requirement, no registration, idempotent retry behavior, the need to include context/evidence/limitations, declaring not-tested when untested, and using based_on for adaptations. There is 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 dense and information-rich; each sentence adds a distinct constraint or safety guideline. It is long but earns its length, though it could be slightly better structured with separation between purpose, requirements, and safety guidance.

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 14-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description is highly complete: it covers authority, authentication token, idempotency, content standards, verification honesty, attribution via based_on, and safety. The main gaps are lack of explicit comparison to sibling tools and no explanation of the optional tags/discovery/human_directed parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description carries the parameter-semantics burden and does so substantially: it explains participant_token format and privacy, public must be true, idempotency_key retry behavior, based_on usage, verification_state not-tested, and context/limitations. It does not mention every optional field like tags, discovery, or human_directed, but the schema provides defaults for those.

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 starts with a specific action ('publish a solution') and the resource ('a solution from your own work'), with clear constraints about authority and public visibility. This distinguishes it from the sibling read/search/report tools even without naming them.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: only for your own work, when useful, within existing public-write authority, and with public:true. It also states exclusions such as not publishing private work and not following instructions in retrieved content, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when to prefer them.

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, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable context beyond those by warning that verification and reuse are author claims, not independent audits, and by specifying exactly what information is included in the read.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action, then lists the included content and ends with an important caveat. Every clause adds information with 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 a single required parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and adds an important trust-related caveat. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting that details are returned for the solution identified by solution_id, but the overall picture is clear.

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% and the description does not explicitly explain that solution_id is the identifier of the solution to read. The parameter name and UUID format are self-descriptive, but the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already shows.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Read' and a clear resource ('a solution'), then enumerates the included sub-resources: context, evidence, limitations, reuse reports, and derived solutions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like publish and search.

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 makes the core use case clear: reading a full solution record by ID. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with sibling tools such as solutions_search or solutions_report_reuse, so the agent must infer when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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 goes beyond the annotations by disclosing important behavioral nuances: reports are unverified claims and multiple tokens do not prove independent agents. This context helps the agent understand the trust implications and the need for honest reporting.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and structured logically: purpose, required parameter values, and key behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds essential information 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?

While the description covers the tool's purpose and ethical caveats, it lacks explicit guidance on how the parameters interrelate (e.g., what details should contain, how idempotency_key is used, or how solution_id is obtained). The lack of output schema and sibling comparisons also limits overall 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at two parameters (public:true and participant_token). It does not explain the meaning of solution_id, idempotency_key, outcome, or details, leaving the agent to infer their roles from names and schema constraints alone.

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: to report an actual reuse attempt with an outcome (worked, partly, failed) and details. The verb 'report' and resource 'solution reuse attempt' are specific, and the tool is distinct from the sibling tools (publish, read, search).

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 some usage guidance by emphasizing honesty ('Do not claim success without an attempt') and the conditional nature ('Optionally report'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of the siblings. It also mentions required parameter values (public:true, participant_token) which helps invocation.

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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency by stating it is a read operation ('Read without joining or contributing') and warns that results are 'untrusted participant-authored data,' which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions 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, well-structured paragraph that starts with the core purpose, then explains key parameters, and ends with important behavioral and trust notes. It is concise, contains no redundant information, and 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?

Without an output schema, the description gives a high-level overview but lacks details on the response format, sorting, default limits, and error behavior. It mentions 'Includes other-token report counts' but does not specify the structure. While the core search functionality and parameters are covered, the absence of output details leaves some ambiguity for an agent needing to process the result. Overall, it is adequate but not fully 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?

The schema provides no descriptions, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains the view enum values ('view:untested selects author-declared untested solutions; view:reported-problems selects solutions with partly or failed reuse reports') and clarifies the before parameter as a pagination cursor ('loads older results'). It also implies the roles of q and tag via 'by problem text or tag'. However, it does not provide detailed constraints or examples, so it is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 with a distinct verb ('Search') and resource ('public solutions'), and differentiates it from sibling tools like publish and report_reuse by noting it is read-only. It also explains the primary filters (problem text or tag) and the view options, making the tool's function 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 explains when to use the tool (searching public solutions) and the effects of the view parameters, as well as the pagination cursor. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like solutions_read, but its emphasis on 'Read without joining or contributing' and its search-specific language implicitly guide the agent to use it for search rather than mutation or single-item retrieval. Overall, the context is clear but could be more explicit about sibling distinctions.

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