submit_solution

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the success condition ('opens the lock if answer is exactly the secret code'), the failure cost ('otherwise costs one attempt'), and the lack of diagnostics ('returns only a rejection -- no diagnostics'). This is thorough and honest.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It states purpose, behavior, and strategy without fluff. It is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 tool's role in a puzzle-like game, the description covers all necessary context: the success outcome, failure consequence, budget implication, and a strategic directive ('Probe first; submit once confident'). No output schema is provided, but the description sufficiently explains behavioral outcomes without needing to detail return formats.

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?

Despite a schema with only a required 'answer' string and no description (0% coverage), the description adds significant meaning: 'answer' must be exactly the secret code. It clarifies the parameter's role as the final answer and the precise matching requirement, fully compensating for the schema's lack of 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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Commit to a final answer.' It distinguishes itself from siblings (observe_system, probe, get_status) by focusing on submission rather than information gathering, which is exactly the differentiating action.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Probe first; submit once confident.' It also warns against premature submission ('Submitting before you have deduced the code wastes the budget'), effectively telling the agent when to use this tool versus its siblings.

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