tm_submit_work

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions environment requirements but omits details about what happens after submission—whether it is idempotent, returns a submission ID, if resubmission is allowed, or any side effects. This is similar to the update_drive calibration example, which scored 2 for lacking such information.

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 with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the purpose and a critical prerequisite in just 12 words, using clear language without unnecessary elaboration.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not mention return values, error conditions, side effects, or any post-submission behavior. For a mutation tool with only two parameters, this leaves significant gaps in what an agent needs to know to use 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a basic mapping: 'a file' corresponds to the file parameter and 'TaskMarket task' corresponds to taskId. This gives enough semantic understanding to infer the parameters' roles, though it lacks detail on formats, constraints, or expected values.

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 and resource: 'Submit work (a file) for a TaskMarket task.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like tm_list_tasks, tm_get_task, tm_my_submissions, and tm_wallet_balance, which are all read-only or list operations. This is the only tool that performs a write/submission action.

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 indicates a prerequisite ('Requires TASKMARKET_API_URL and worker wallet'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage is for delivering a completed file for a task but lacks explicit exclusions or comparative guidance.

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