agent_submit

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

Annotations already declare this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds genuine context beyond them: only pending orders accept submissions, and the answer rejoins the same validation chain. It still does not disclose what 'destructive' means here (does resubmitting overwrite a prior answer?) — an important gap for a destructive 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action stated first and the constraints in a compact parenthetical. No wasted words, though very terse for a destructive write operation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry return/error behavior, and it does not say what happens on success or when no pending order is found. For a destructive write tool with zero required params it is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about failure modes.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (answer, project, workdir, request_id). The description adds nothing about parameter format or defaults, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (submit/交) and resource (an answer to a pending order), and the parenthetical clarifies the target is a pending 挂单. An agent can distinguish this from agent_next (which produces the order), though the sibling is not named directly in the description.

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 constraint '只有 pending 的单能收' tells the agent when submission is valid (only for pending orders), which is meaningful guidance. However it does not name alternatives or state what to do if no pending order exists (e.g. call agent_next first). Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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