Share Singularis results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context that sharing is optional and hardware-dependent, but it does not explain where results are shared, whether they are public, or what happens after submission.

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 front-loaded with the action and then efficiently enumerates the expected inputs. It contains no significant filler and remains appropriately sized for an optional submission tool.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is nearly complete, though it omits privacy or visibility details that would be useful for a sharing/submission tool.

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, and it names all six parameters with practical meaning: review, post_url, prior_cloud_usd, singularis_usd, speedup, and hardware. It could be stronger by clarifying units or formats, but it substantially covers the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Share your Singularis results.' It lists exactly what is being shared and is clearly distinct from the sibling compute tools.

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?

It says sharing is 'optional, and appreciated,' which implies voluntary use, but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Usage is only lightly implied.

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