get_competition

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

No annotations provided, but description explains the data returned (submissionSpec fields) and implies read-only via name and scope 'competition.read'. Could explicitly state no modification, but adequate.

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: first states purpose, second provides critical usage guidance. No extraneous information.

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 get tool with one parameter and no output schema, description covers purpose, scope, output contents, and usage context. Complete and actionable.

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?

Only one parameter (competition_id) with 0% schema coverage. Description does not elaborate beyond the parameter name, but name is self-explanatory and description implicitly confirms it as identifier.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'competition detail, including its submissionSpec', distinguishing it from sibling tools like submit_competition_entry by specifying the output scope.

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?

Explicitly instructs to read submissionSpec before calling related submission tools (submit_competition_entry, submit_playground_run), providing clear context and alternatives.

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