tokenpull_submit

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe re-runs. The description adds behavioral context: it computes cascade, submits to board for server-side rescoring, and tags with source platform. It also discloses that omitting codename gives a preview and that no prompt content is transmitted. This enriches beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 concise at about 100 words, with the main purpose stated first ('Pull your LOCAL token usage from session logs AND publish it to the SigRank board in one call'). Every sentence provides essential information, no redundancy or filler. Proper use of dashes and spacing enhances 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 2 enums, output schema exists), the description covers the key points: what the tool does, how parameters affect behavior, and what happens during submission. It does not explain the output schema, but that is covered by the schema itself. The description could be more complete by mentioning idempotency or error cases, but it is sufficient.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the effect of codename (required for submission, omit for preview) and the meaning of 'multi' and 'devin' platforms. It also clarifies default values for window and platform. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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's purpose: pulling local token usage and publishing to SigRank board in one call. It specifies the four pillars (input, output, cacheCreate, cacheRead) and the cascade computation, differentiating from siblings like `tokenpull` (which likely only pulls) and `submit_paste` (which uses a different method). The verb 'Pull... AND publish' is specific and resource-focused.

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 when to use the tool: for a zero-paste flow combining pull and submit. It offers an alternative: omit codename for local preview only. It also advises on window and platform selection but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool (e.g., when you need to submit without local logs). The privacy reassurance ('Token-only — no prompt content is read or transmitted') adds trust. Absence of explicit 'when not to use' prevents a higher score.

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