submit_tribulation_evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It lacks details on idempotency, mutability, authorization (e.g., GitHub username requirement), rate limits, or side effects. The bilingual text adds some context but omits critical behavioral information.

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 a clear header and a list of arguments. The bilingual format adds length but serves a dual audience. Every sentence is meaningful and earns its place.

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?

Parameter details are well-covered, and an output schema exists. However, broader context is missing, such as prerequisites (e.g., required realm level), relationship to sibling tools, or error scenarios. The system domain is niche but the description assumes familiarity.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by providing clear explanations for each parameter, including examples (e.g., 'evidence_key: lineage_users, artifact_downloads, dependent_projects') and constraints (e.g., 'amount must be a positive integer', 'source_url must be an http(s) URL'). This adds significant 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 the tool's action: 'Submit Tribulation Evidence — Record public evidence for high-realm gates.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name differentiates it from sibling 'check_tribulation'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_tribulation'. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are provided. The user is left to infer usage from the name and description.

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