gibwork_submitWork

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'submit completed work' without explaining side effects (e.g., on-chain transaction, gas costs, confirmation requirements). The description fails to inform the agent about the mutability or blockchain interaction involved.

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 a single sentence, making it concise. However, it is under-specified and could include more useful details without becoming verbose. It earns a middle score because while short, it sacrifices informativeness.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify return values or outcomes. It lacks information about success/failure indicators, transaction confirmation, or error conditions. The tool's complexity warrants more context for correct invocation.

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?

The description does not add any meaning beyond the input schema; 2 of 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema (wallet and submissionUrl), but the description itself ignores parameters entirely. Given 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 'Submit completed work for a Gib Work bounty' clearly states the action (submit) and the resource (completed work for a specific bounty system). It differentiates from sibling tools like gibwork_createBounty and gibwork_listBounties which have different purposes.

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, no prerequisites (e.g., an existing bounty), and no conditions for correct usage. The agent is left to infer that it should be used after completing work, but no explicit context is provided.

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