get_all_submissions

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication and pagination but does not detail side effects, rate limits, ordering, or the exact nature of 'detailed submission metadata'. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 that front-loads the action and key constraints (pagination, authentication). No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description could explain the return format more. It says 'detailed metadata' but not what fields. However, the parameter descriptions are complete, so overall adequate.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds that questionSlug filters for a specific problem or all, which matches schema. No added detail on limit/offset format or defaults beyond 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 retrieves a paginated list of the current user's submissions, optionally filtered by problem slug. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_recent_submissions by emphasizing 'all submissions' and pagination.

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 mentions authentication requirement and implies use for full submission history. However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings like get_recent_submissions or get_recent_ac_submissions, so the when-to-use guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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