arbitration__submit_evidence

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose what happens after submission (e.g., immutability, confirmation, or state changes). Mentions evidence kinds and weights but lacks behavioral details 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?

Very concise single sentence with essential information: domain prefix, action, condition, allowed values, and access restriction. No unnecessary 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?

Moderate completeness for a simple action: covers when, what, and who. Missing parameter details for case_id, party, and content, and lacks behavioral effects or return value. Adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so description must compensate. Only 'kind' is explained with values and weights; 'case_id', 'party', and 'content' are not described. Party is implied to be a named party but format unspecified. Insufficient for 4 parameters.

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?

Description clearly states verb (Submit), resource (evidence), condition (while case open), and domain context. Distinguishes from siblings like file_case and rule by specifying it's for evidence submission in open cases.

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?

Provides clear context: when to use (while case open) and who can submit (only named parties). Lacks explicit mention of when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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