submit_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool submits (a write operation) and returns ID/URL, but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or whether submission creates a draft vs. final report. The description is adequate but could provide more context about side effects.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states purpose and return, the second gives prerequisite guidance. No redundant information, and the key point 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 tool complexity (7 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description effectively covers purpose, return values, and prerequisite steps. It does not explain error handling or idempotency, but the information provided is sufficient for a typical submission scenario.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking weakess_id and structured_scope_id to get_program_weaknesses and get_program_scope, but otherwise does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond the schema's own 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 clearly states the action 'Submit a new vulnerability report to a HackerOne program' and specifies the return value 'Returns the new report ID and URL'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on report intents, searches, or other operations.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use get_program_scope and get_program_weaknesses first to get the right scope/weakness IDs', providing clear preconditions and referencing specific sibling tools. This guides the agent on when to use this tool and what prerequisite steps are needed.

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