download_submission_text

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits. It discloses that it raises NO_DOWNLOAD_FOR_KIND for model-reference submissions and describes the different payload fields returned depending on submission type. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose and including essential details (scope, content types, error case). Every sentence adds value with no wasted 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?

For a simple download tool with two standard parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the return types, error condition, and scope. It is complete given the tool's complexity and the available context.

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%, and the description does not add any meaning to the two parameters (competition_id, submission_id). No formats, examples, or additional context are provided, making the description insufficient to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool downloads the stored text body of a submission as plain text. It specifies the scope (competition.read) and differentiates the content types (payload.content, payload.solverCode, payload.polynomials) based on submission kind, distinguishing it from siblings like get_submission_by_id.

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 provides context on when to use the tool by listing supported submission kinds (cheatsheet, solver-participation, igp24-polynomial) and raises an error for model-reference submissions. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_submission_by_id or explain when not to use it.

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