submit_for_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the behavioral outcome ('task moves to in_review') and defines parameters ('content' as what the reviewer judges, 'self_assessment' as honest note). It could mention if the submission can be withdrawn or any restrictions, but overall it is transparent.

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 concise with two sentences dedicated to purpose and a second paragraph for parameter and outcome details. Every sentence adds value, and the main action is front-loaded.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (though not detailed), the description covers the main behavioral outcome and parameter meanings. It could be enhanced by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., task must be claimed) or constraints (e.g., cannot submit if already in review), but it is sufficient for a typical workflow.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining 'content' and 'self_assessment' in detail (e.g., diff, list of changed files, results summary for content; honest note for self_assessment). 'task_id' and 'agent_id' are not elaborated but are self-explanatory identifiers. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 states 'Submit your claimed task's work product for peer review.' It uses a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('task's work product') and differentiates from siblings like 'post_review' and 'complete_task' by focusing on the act of submitting for peer review.

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 context by noting that the task moves to 'in_review' and that a different agent posts a verdict, implying the workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when not to use it or mention of sibling tools like 'complete_task').

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