request_missing_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about the tool's effects, side effects, permissions, or safety. Saying it's an alias implies similar behavior to submit_idea, but that is not explicitly stated, leaving the agent without useful behavioral information.

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?

While the description is short, it is not appropriately sized for usefulness. The two sentences are essentially redundant ('Alias for submit_idea' and 'Prefer submit_idea' both convey the same directive), and they provide no substantive value for an agent evaluating the tool.

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 it is an alias with a simple schema and no output schema, the description could still be enough to direct the agent to submit_idea, but it lacks any functional description of what the tool does. If an agent were to invoke this tool, it would have no idea of its purpose or behavior, making the definition incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (title, description) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 only states 'Alias for submit_idea' without explaining what the tool actually does. It does not specify a verb+resource or distinguish it from siblings beyond naming the primary tool. The name hints at requesting a missing tool, but the description itself is vague.

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 explicitly instructs 'Prefer submit_idea.', giving clear guidance to use the alternative tool instead. This is direct and unambiguous, though it lacks any context for when this alias might be used.

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