List my submissions

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: scope limited to the authenticated account, newest-first ordering, inclusion of verdicts and timestamps, and optional filters/pagination. Nothing contradicts annotations, and the output schema covers return structure.

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 carry the core behavior, sort order, included fields, filters, and pagination without repetition or fluff. The most identifying information is front-loaded in the first 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?

For a simple read-only list operation, the description is complete: it names scope, ordering, response contents, filters, and pagination. The input schema documents all four parameters, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists, so nothing important 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description restates the parameter concepts ('filter by problem slug or contest id, and page with page/page_size') but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List the authenticated account's submissions.' It adds meaningful scope ('authenticated account's') and ordering ('newest first'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like repovive_get_problem_submissions and repovive_get_submission.

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 when to use it—listing one's own submissions—but gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over related siblings such as repovive_get_problem_submissions or repovive_get_submission. There are no stated exclusions or alternative routing conditions.

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