ralph_loop_submit_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action (submit review decision) and the parameters, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., state transitions), required permissions, or what happens after submission (e.g., if SHIP ends the loop).

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and key details. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the core purpose but lacks context on workflow integration (e.g., what happens after SHIP vs REVISE, how it fits with sibling tools). It is adequate but not fully complete for a non-trivial tool in a loop.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating 'SHIP' and 'REVISE'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as it provides no additional semantic value over 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'submit' and the resource 'review decision'. It lists the two decision options (SHIP/REVISE) and feedback. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like ralph_loop_submit_work, missing a chance to emphasize that this is for the reviewer phase specifically.

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 usage during the reviewer phase ('from the reviewer phase') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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