kaggle_get_submission_score

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details: bounded polling with backoff, not a hot loop, and that it returns the public score and closes the submit loop. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise, two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and includes key qualifiers (bounded polling, backoff) efficiently.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return values are handled. The description covers polling behavior, backoff, and loop closure. Minor gaps: it doesn't address error conditions (e.g., no newest submission) or edge cases, but overall sufficient for a poll 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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. While it does not explicitly describe the parameters, the names (timeout_s, interval_s) and defaults are self-explanatory in the context of polling. The description implies their role but lacks explicit detail.

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 polls the newest submission until scoring completes and returns its public score. It specifies it 'closes the submit loop,' distinguishing it from siblings like kaggle_submission_best_score (which returns best score) and kaggle_list_submissions (which lists submissions).

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 implies this tool is used after submission to get the score, as it 'closes the submit loop.' It also mentions bounded polling with backoff and explicitly warns against hot loops. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or state 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.