singularis_share_results

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly does not: it never says where the data goes, whether the submission is public, whether it can be retracted, or whether authentication is required. For a tool whose entire function is transmitting user data and a review, those omissions are material.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the parameter glosses follow in one dense sentence. The parenthetical 'optional, and appreciated' is slightly soft and the closing hardware remark is a bit chummy, but nothing is redundant or padded.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameter list is complete. What is missing is the surrounding contract for a submission tool with zero annotation support: required auth/registration state and what happens to the shared data.

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 does: it glosses all six parameters (review, post_url, prior_cloud_usd, singularis_usd, speedup, hardware) with enough meaning to fill them correctly. It stops short of formats or units (e.g. speedup as a multiplier vs. a duration, USD as a raw number).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Share your Singularis results') and immediately enumerates the payload it accepts, which cleanly separates it from the compute siblings (solve_heat, gemm, fft, etc.). It does not name a sibling explicitly, but no reasonable agent would confuse it with the numeric solvers.

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 the call is 'optional, and appreciated', implying it should be used after obtaining results, and notes 'GPU optional for even greater results'. There is no explicit when-not-to-use, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. whether a registered key is needed despite singularis_register_key existing), and no alternative named.

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