submit_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose important constraints (file must exist, extensions depend on task, optional comment) but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether previous submissions are overwritten, whether submission is final, or what the server returns on success/failure). This is useful but incomplete transparency for a mutation tool.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds relevant context: the action, the file prerequisite and extension constraint, and the optional comment. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose and prerequisites, and correctly points to get_task for extension details. However, it omits information about the return value, error conditions, or whether resubmission is allowed. This leaves some gaps for a tool that performs a state-changing submission.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains each parameter: task_id identifies the task (whose rules determine allowed extensions), file_path refers to an existing local file, and comment is optional. This gives meaning beyond the raw schema property names, though examples or format details are absent.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Submit a report file for a specific task.' It distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling tools (e.g., list_tasks, get_task, download_material) by being the only submission action. The added detail about file existence and task-dependent extensions further clarifies its scope.

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 gives explicit usage context: it tells the agent to 'check get_task first' to learn allowed extensions, which is a clear prerequisite. It also states that the file must already exist locally and that a comment is optional. It does not explicitly exclude other tools, but the context is sufficient for selecting this tool over siblings.

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