tm_my_submissions

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 states the operation is 'List' (implying read-only) but does not disclose auth requirements, return format, pagination, or what constitutes a 'submission'. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It conveys the core action and scope in 8 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 the low complexity (zero params, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but lacks details about the returned data structure or what 'submissions' includes. Sibling tools provide context, but the description could still mention ordering or fields.

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 schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context by noting the operation is scoped to 'this wallet', clarifying that the wallet is determined contextually. This is adequate for a no-parameter tool.

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 ('List') and resource ('all submissions made by this wallet'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like tm_list_tasks and tm_submit_work. The 'made by this wallet' scope adds precision.

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 (to view submissions for the current wallet) but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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