submit_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly states that 'The report becomes publicly available,' which is a critical irreversible side effect. However, it does not mention whether the submission is permanent or if any authentication is required, though the public-availability disclosure is the most important trait.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, when to use, and why it matters. There is no redundancy or fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple interface (one parameter, fully documented) and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the action, prerequisite, and public impact. It doesn't mention error handling or return values, but these are not required when the schema is self-sufficient. Minor gaps like potential validation or failure modes prevent a perfect score.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of the 'report' parameter, including required fields and their types. The description adds the concept of 'completed' and ties the report to the output of audit_package, but does not add further syntactic or structural detail. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Submit' with a clear resource: 'completed security audit report to the AgentAudit registry (agentaudit.dev)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_package and check_package, which are about analysis rather than submission. The mention of being 'after audit_package' further clarifies its role.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Call this after you have analyzed the code from audit_package.' This is a clear prerequisite that helps the agent choose the correct timing. It also implies not to call before an audit is complete, effectively excluding premature use.

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