List submissions for a task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether ownership is enforced, or what the response format will be. 'Track and present' is ambiguous and could imply stateful behavior, which is not clarified.

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, compact and free of fluff. It communicates the core action and context efficiently. The phrase 'Track and present' is slightly redundant with 'list,' but it's not harmful. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 must supply context about the response and side effects. It does not describe the return structure, pagination, or any ownership authorization details. For a simple tool, it provides only the most basic purpose, lacking important behavioral context that an agent needs 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 provides only a string taskId with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by indicating the taskId refers to a task 'you posted' and that submissions are listed for it. However, it doesn't provide details on the format, source, or constraints beyond what the schema already states, leaving some ambiguity.

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 indicates the tool lists submissions for a specific task ('Track and present submissions for a task you posted'). The verb 'list' in the title reinforces this. It adds context that the task must be one you posted, which distinguishes from general submission viewing, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_tasks or get_task.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for review before awarding' hints at a use case, but it doesn't state when not to use it or mention any prerequisites. Sibling tools like award_submissions or reject_submission are not referenced.

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