aa_evaluate_critpt

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds value by disclosing that the tool takes substantial time because the upstream grading service runs evaluation jobs. It also implies a write operation. No contradictions present.

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 structured with a main paragraph followed by clear Args and Returns sections. It is informative without significant redundancy, though a bit verbose.

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?

The tool's purpose, usage constraints, parameter expectations, and return format are all covered. While the description assumes domain knowledge of CritPt and does not detail the submission object fields beyond names, it is largely complete for a submission tool with an output schema.

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%, but the description compensates by specifying that each submission must include problem_id, generated_code, model, and generation_config, and that batch_metadata is optional. This adds meaningful structure beyond the schema's empty object types.

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 explicitly states the tool evaluates a complete CritPt benchmark batch, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like listing models or healthchecks. The verb 'submit' and resource 'CritPt benchmark batch' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explains that submissions must include all public CritPt problems in one request and warns about substantial runtime. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, though siblings are unrelated.

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