tokyo_trials_submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses real behavioral traits: scoring scale (0–1000), a rate limit ('five attempts a day'), cost ('free'), and result semantics ('the best score counts'). It omits what happens on an invalid answer or whether sign-in is required, but covers more than most mutation tools.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the prerequisite, then the answer shape, then scoring rules — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The telegraphic format fragments (Loot/Courier/Ledger) are dense but each carries information the schema lacks.

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 one-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the answer format, scoring, attempt limit, and best-score semantics. It is close to complete, missing only failure/error behavior and any auth precondition.

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 0% and the lone 'answer' parameter is a bare nested object, so the description must compensate — and it does, spelling out the expected shape: Loot {items:[indices]}, Courier {order:[1..8 in visit order]}, Ledger {top:'crew', balance:n, rejected:n}. Some fields remain cryptic (what the indices index, accepted 'crew' values), so it falls short of fully documenting the object.

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?

States a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('an answer to today's Tokyo Trials challenge'), and explicitly routes the agent to the companion read tool with 'read it first with tokyo_read what=trials'. An agent can tell this apart from the read sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite and ordering ('read it first with tokyo_read what=trials'), which is exactly the context an agent needs before submitting. It does not, however, address alternatives like tokyo_play or state when not to use this tool.

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