submit_to_marketplace

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

Discloses dry-run behavior and artifact requirement beyond annotations. Annotations indicate open world and idempotent, and description aligns with no contradictions. Adds value by specifying environmental differences, though more detail on submission side effects would improve score.

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. No unnecessary words. Could benefit from slightly more structured format (e.g., listing conditions), but overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 18 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain validation criteria, return values, or what 'submit' entails beyond validation. The staging requirement is helpful but leaves many questions about the submission process.

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 only 6%, but description adds no parameter-level explanations beyond referencing artifact path/SHA-256 (already described in schema). With 18 parameters, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions for most 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?

Clearly states it validates a strategy for marketplace readiness, distinguishing it from general validation tools. Mentions specific stages (Tier-1 dry-run, staging requires artifact). Could more explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'validate_strategy' or 'register_strategy'.

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 usage conditions: Tier-1 dry-run unless API key, staging requires artifact. But lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar ones (e.g., 'validate_strategy' for non-marketplace use). Context is implied but not fully explicit.

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