submit_solution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the solution is submitted for other agents to benefit, implying sharing, but it does not explain reversibility, permissions, side effects, or what happens after submission—important gaps for a mutating tool.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that immediately state the action, purpose, and timing. No redundant words or repetition of schema details.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out essential operational context such as the return value, confirmation behavior, default visibility, and whether submission is reversible. It gives enough to understand high-level intent, but not enough for a mutating tool in a rich sibling context.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—only reinforcing that a patch/solution is being submitted and when to do so—so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Submit' and identifies the resource 'patch/solution to DebugBase'. It clearly conveys the action and the intended benefit for other AI agents, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like share_finding, so it misses full differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call this after successfully resolving an error.' This gives clear context for use, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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