submit_work

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the action and does not disclose side effects, whether the submission updates task state, permission requirements, idempotency, or whether a submission can be replaced. For a mutation-like operation, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to missing detail in other dimensions.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the tool definition is incomplete for an agent to invoke reliably. Missing information includes artifact format expectations, note usage, task state implications, and what happens after submission. The minimal description is not enough for correct invocation in a real workflow.

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, but it does not. It never explains what 'artifact' should contain, what 'note' is for, or how task_id relates to the submission. The parameter names alone are not enough for an agent to know valid values or format beyond basic schema constraints.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Submit an artifact against an open task.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_task, close_task, and give_verdict, which have different objects and actions. Despite no title, the one-line description is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 phrase 'against an open task' provides clear context: submission is only relevant when a task exists and is open. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like close_task or give_verdict, which could clarify the surrounding workflow.

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