submit_replication_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the submission action but reveals nothing about side effects (e.g., whether this creates a public record, triggers notifications, or updates scroll status) or idempotency constraints.

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?

Single sentence with no filler or redundancy. While efficient, it is arguably undersized for the tool's complexity, though this defect is captured in other dimensions.

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?

Grossly insufficient for a 7-parameter submission tool with complex domain logic. While an output schema exists (reducing the need for return value documentation), the complete absence of parameter documentation and behavioral context leaves critical gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 7 complex parameters (including `artifact_bundle_id`, `observed_metrics`, and `success`), the description provides zero semantic assistance for what these fields represent or valid input formats.

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?

States the basic action (submit) and domain object (reproducibility check results) but remains vague about what constitutes 'results' and fails to differentiate its role in the workflow from sibling tools like `submit_artifact_bundle_tool` or `get_replication_report`.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., whether an artifact bundle must be submitted first) or the expected sequencing of replication workflows.

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