get_problem_submission_report

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

The description adds value by noting the authentication requirement and listing the return contents (source code, runtime stats, test results). However, without annotations, it fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has any side effects, which is important for behavioral understanding.

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, front-loaded sentence that covers the key points: action, input, output, and authentication. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could be slightly restructured for even better readability.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states what the tool does, what it returns, and a key contextual requirement (authentication). While the return format is not fully detailed, the listed contents provide adequate guidance for an AI agent.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description, the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'by its ID'. It does not elaborate on ID format or validation constraints, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema already covers the parameter.

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 detailed information about a specific LeetCode submission by ID, including source code, runtime stats, and test results. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_recent_submissions or get_all_submissions by focusing on a single submission's full report.

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 'requires authentication' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_recent_submissions. Usage context is implied (need a submission ID), but no when-not or alternative tools are named.

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