submit_work

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions required inputs but does not disclose whether submission is final, if it can be updated, whether prior claiming is required, or any side effects. For a submission/mutation tool, this is a significant transparency 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 that front-loads the purpose and key requirements. Every word adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 covers the core action and required parameters, but without annotations or an output schema, it omits important context like prerequisites (e.g., must have claimed the bounty) and post-submission behavior. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for an agent.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The description adds only a minor hint that proof URL is 'usually GitHub', but otherwise restates what the schema already provides. 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 'Submit completed work for a bounty' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like claim_bounty by focusing on the submission step rather than claiming.

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 gives clear context about when to use (after completing work) and mentions the need for proof URL and description. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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