runninghub_submit_task

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the key non-obvious facts: the call returns a taskId (asynchronous), results must be awaited via runninghub_wait_task, and the standard model API requires an enterprise-shared API Key. It still omits failure/error semantics and any rate-limit or quota behavior.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by workflow, return value, and the auth caveat. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 4-parameter submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the required inputs' provenance, the return value, and the auth constraint. Minor gaps remain around error handling and what wait=true actually blocks on, which the schema only partially clarifies.

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, but the description adds real meaning: endpoint must come from runninghub_search_models, and params must contain exactly the fields the target model's documentation requires (and excludes auth info). That is guidance the schema alone does not provide.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('提交 RunningHub 标准模型任务') and scopes it to 'standard model' tasks, which distinguishes it from sibling query/wait/file tools. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 gives an explicit ordered workflow: call runninghub_search_models first to obtain the endpoint, then populate params from that model's docs, then use runninghub_wait_task for results. Alternatives and prerequisites are named rather than implied.

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