get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data returned (last 1000 submissions, summary, 20 recent details) but does not mention read-only status, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., for missing users). The information is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary action and key output, while the second adds context on usage. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main outputs (counts, details) and use case (debugging). It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly, though it could note if pagination exists for the 1000 submissions.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'username' parameter beyond its name. It fails to specify format, constraints, or clarify that it is the target user's username. Given the low coverage, the description does not compensate for missing schema details.

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 fetches the last 1000 submissions of a user and provides a summary of AC/WA/TLE counts plus details of the 20 most recent submissions. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_user (basic info) or compare_user (comparisons).

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 mentions it is 'great for debugging how a user is performing on their current attempts,' implying a use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_user or get_upsolve. 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.