ouroboros_submit_fanout_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact input contract (one {key, content} per child, key equals correlation field, undispatched sentinel), the 'never invent output' rule, the `status=partial` error condition for missing keys, and the return artifact envelope with explicit fetch instructions. This is exceptional behavioral disclosure.

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 dense yet efficiently structured, front-loading the purpose and then providing necessary protocol details. Every sentence earns its place: correlation key mapping, undispatched handling, missing-key behavior, and envelope retrieval. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description explains the prerequisite (spawned subagents with meta), the exact payload format, partial submission behavior, and how to fetch the result artifact. It leaves little ambiguity about the workflow, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining how `key` maps to the correlation field, how `results` entries should be structured, and the retry requirement for partial submissions. It doesn't fully compensate for the schema because the schema is already descriptive, but it enhances understanding.

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 opens with 'Submit correlated results from a subagent fan-out back to Ouroboros,' using a specific verb ('submit') and a clear resource (correlated results). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ouroboros_auto or ouroboros_session_signal by its unique role in the fan-out submission flow.

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?

It explicitly states when to call: 'After spawning the advisory/persona/investigation subagents declared by a prior tool's meta... call this tool with one {key, content} per child output.' It also provides guidance on handling undispatched children and missing keys. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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