arena_submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the auth requirement, that measurement happens server-side by running the Gene rather than being caller-supplied, that certain arguments are rejected, and even the underlying CLI invocation. It stops short of describing what is returned or whether a submission is reversible/overwrites prior results.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then prerequisites, then the refusal rule. Slightly dense but every clause carries information; nothing is 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?

For a two-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, alternatives, and the key behavioral constraint. The only real gap is what a successful submission yields (score? URL?), which the agent must infer.

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 100%, so gene_name and project_root are already documented (baseline 3). The description adds genuine value by enumerating rejected pseudo-parameters (fitness_value, safety_score, success_rate, latency_score, resource_efficiency), which tells the agent the measurement inputs are off-limits despite not appearing in the schema.

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 pair (measure, submit) and resource (local Gene -> Arena), which no sibling tool covers. An agent can distinguish this from run_gene, test_gene, or publish_gene without opening a schema.

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 states the prerequisites (rotifer login, Gene existing locally) and routes to named siblings: list_local_genes to discover, install_gene to fetch. Also states a negative condition — supplying fitness_value and friends is refused — so the agent knows what not to do.

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