tm_task_submissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool never auto-accepts, which is a meaningful trait, but it omits whether the operation is read-only, what the response looks like, ownership requirements, or any side effects. Minimal disclosure for a list operation that may be expected to be safe.

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 filler. The key behavioral note ('never auto-accepts') is included efficiently. Slightly under-specified in content but concise in form.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what kind of data is returned and how it connects to accepting/rejecting. It only states the purpose and a behavioral caveat. For a 1-param tool, it's better than many but still leaves the agent guessing about the return structure and workflow.

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%, so the description must explain the taskId parameter. It does not mention taskId at all, nor does it specify that the taskId refers to the posted task's identifier. No information beyond the schema's bare property type is added.

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 specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('submissions for a task you posted'), and adds the review context. It distinguishes itself from 'tm_my_submissions' by specifying 'you posted' (requester view), and from accept/reject tools by noting it only presents work.

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 implies usage when the user is a requester wanting to see submissions for review. The phrase 'never auto-accepts' hints that acceptance is separate, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'tm_accept_submissions' or 'tm_reject_submission'. Clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use or sibling routing.

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