task_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 discloses a key behavioral trait via 'own wallet view for winner_only visibility', informing potential access restrictions. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what is returned, or any error/edge-case behavior, leaving some gaps.

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: 'List submissions for a Taskmarket task' followed by a parenthetical scope note. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant phrasing or 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values or behavior, but it does not. It omits what the list of submissions contains (e.g., IDs, statuses), pagination, ordering, or what happens if the caller is not the winner. The parenthetical gives some context but leaves significant gaps for a simple list operation.

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 only parameter, task_id, is already fully described in the schema as a '0x-prefixed 32-byte task ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists submissions for a Taskmarket task, using a specific verb and resource. The parenthetical 'own wallet view for winner_only visibility' adds a scope constraint, which helps distinguish it from siblings like task_pitches or task_proofs, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 clear context: this tool is for listing submissions for a specific task, with the caveat that visibility depends on the wallet and winner status. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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