submit_findings

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

The description provides critical behavioral logic not in the schema or annotations: the conditional state machine. It specifies that an empty list results in a direct 'done' transition, while a non-empty list forces a transition to 'review' and auto-creation of findings.

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 tool uses exactly two sentences to convey highly complex workflow logic and branching outcomes, demonstrating perfect conciseness.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the focus is on input functionality. The description covers all necessary operational contexts, including the conditional outcomes based on the input data.

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 0%, requiring the description to carry the burden. However, the description only mentions 'findings' generally and adds no context or semantics to the required 'ClaimToken' or 'as_agent' parameters, leaving them undocumented functionally.

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 states exactly what the tool submits (findings) and explicitly limits its operational context to 'Audit-plan only.' It distinguishes the result based on the content of the Findings array.

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 clearly defines its scope by stating 'Audit-plan only,' effectively narrowing its place in the workflow. While it doesn't name alternatives, the context is sufficient to prevent misuse.

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