submit_question

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 mentions that the tool returns answer results, which is helpful, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like authentication requirements (though JSESSIONID is a parameter), potential side effects (e.g., whether submission is final), error conditions, or rate limits. The description is minimal beyond stating the basic operation.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. It uses two sentences and a parameter list efficiently, though the parameter explanations could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, but it could be slightly more 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 complexity (a submission tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error handling, return values beyond '返回答题结果' (return answer results), and how it interacts with the system. For a mutation tool with zero structured coverage, this is inadequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides some semantic context: JSESSIONID is described as '用户的JSESSIONID' (user's JSESSIONID), answer is clarified as '答案，例如 "A" 或 "B" 等选项' (answer, such as 'A' or 'B' options). However, course_id and question_id lack additional meaning beyond their names. The description adds partial value but doesn't fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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: '提交课程题目答案, 返回答题结果' (submit course question answers, return answer results). It specifies the verb (submit) and resource (question answers), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_question. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it relates to sibling tools like get_courses or get_question. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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