elenchus_submit_round

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool analyzes for new issues, context expansion, convergence, and mediator interventions, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects, error handling, or required permissions. The transparency is moderate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences: the first clearly states the action, the second adds key analytical purpose. No redundant or irrelevant information. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity of the tool (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a high-level overview but lacks detail on how to structure inputs or what the analysis results look like. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete for an agent to use without schema inspection.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. For example, it does not explain how to format issuesRaised or the meaning of 'output.' Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Submit' and the resource 'output of a verification round,' and further specifies that it analyzes for new issues, context expansion, convergence, and mediator interventions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like elenchus_get_issues (retrieval) and elenchus_evaluate_convergence (evaluation step).

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 implies the tool is used to submit round outputs and analyze results, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like elenchus_evaluate_convergence or elenchus_get_issues. There is no guidance on when not to use it or what prerequisites are needed.

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