提交公开来源 / Submit public source

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

Beyond the annotations (write, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description explicitly states that it does not auto-approve or collect, and that it keeps submission evidence. This adds clear behavioral expectations without contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured, conveying the core action and key limitations in two short sentences. No fluff or redundant information.

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?

The description adequately explains the main action and what it does not do, which covers the essential behavior for a submission tool. It does not mention return values or post-submission effects, but given the simple input schema and absence of an output schema, this is acceptable.

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?

The schema lists three parameters (url, note, title) but the description only mentions the URL. No explanation is provided for the optional 'note' or 'title' fields, leaving their purpose and expected content unclear.

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 that the tool submits a public URL as a candidate into the graph with evidence, and distinguishes it from automatic actions like detection or approval. This is a distinct and well-defined purpose.

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 implicitly guides when to use this tool by stating it does not automatically detect, approve, or collect, implying it is the initial submission step. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'review_source' or 'probe_source', leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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