Get submissions for a problem

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it defaults to the authenticated account and notes that viewing another participant's submissions depends on contest permissions. This gives the agent an actionable expectation about authorization without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action and resource scope are front-loaded, and the optional parameter behavior is stated compactly in the second sentence.

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 read-only annotations, full parameter schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the resource scope, the default user, and the optional user_id override with its permission constraint. Nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add nuance to user_id by saying it defaults to the authenticated account and that viewing others is permission-gated, but contest_id and problem_slug add nothing beyond their schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'List the submissions made against one contest problem,' which clearly identifies the tool's scope. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like repovive_list_my_submissions or repovive_get_submission to draw the contrast, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explains the default behavior (authenticated account) and when to pass user_id, including the contest-permission caveat. It gives clear context for choosing this tool over a generic submissions view, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it in favor of specific alternatives.

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