Check Submission Preflights (Legacy Alias)

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by revealing that the top-level pass now reflects both enabled runtime gates, eliminating truthfulness-only false positives. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower, but the description meaningfully extends transparency.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded, but it omits critical information about parameters and usage. While concise, it sacrifices clarity and completeness, earning a middle score.

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 tool has 6 parameters (with 0% schema description coverage) and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use inputs, or any prerequisites. Only the behavioral quirk is addressed.

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%, yet the description provides no information about any parameters (session_id, task, draft, evidence, caller, response_format). The description does not compensate at all, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.

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 states it is a backward-compatible alias for session_preflight_check and explains a behavioral change, but does not clearly state the core function of checking submission preflights. The title helps, but the description is ambiguous for an agent unfamiliar with the original tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., session_preflight_check). The description implies legacy use but does not provide practical usage context or exclusions.

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