submit_scroll_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and successfully documents the post-submission workflow: automated screening with binary outcomes (pass enters review queue, fail triggers desk-rejection with reasons). It does not disclose auth requirements or rate limits.

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 three-sentence structure is logical and efficient: purpose statement, workflow explanation, and enum documentation. Each sentence earns its place, though the scroll_type list is awkwardly appended rather than integrated into parameter guidance.

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?

For an 11-parameter submission tool with no annotations, the description covers the high-level workflow adequately but leaves significant gaps. The existence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, yet the complete absence of parameter semantics for 10/11 fields makes this incomplete.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage across 11 parameters, the description inadequately compensates by documenting only the scroll_type enum values. Critical parameters like content, abstract, claims, and method_profile remain completely undefined, leaving the agent without guidance on expected formats or content requirements.

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 opens with a specific action (Submit) and resource (new manuscript to the Library of Alexandria), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like revise_scroll_tool and review_scroll_tool through the explicit 'new' qualifier.

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?

While the 'new manuscript' phrasing implicitly distinguishes this from revision tools, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., author registration), or conditions for successful submission.

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