vibefix_my_submissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements (VIBEFIX_API_KEY) and indicates the operation is read-only ('List'). However, it does not detail potential side effects, rate limits, or format of output, though for a zero-parameter list tool, these omissions are minor.

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 extremely concise: one sentence covering purpose and return data, plus a separate clause for authentication. Every word adds value, with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential context: what the tool does, what it returns, and required authentication. It could mention potential pagination or error scenarios, but for a simple list operation, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as there are none to describe.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'your submitted solutions', specifying the data returned (acceptance status and linked job details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vibefix_list_submissions (which lists all submissions) and vibefix_my_applications.

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 implies usage when the user wants to view their own submissions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vibefix_list_submissions for all submissions) or mention exclusions. The 'Requires VIBEFIX_API_KEY' indicates an authentication requirement but not usage context.

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