brain_submissions

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the status scope is stated, but the description does not explicitly confirm no side effects, nor does it explain how the status filter behaves when empty or how the output is ordered/paginated. The output schema covers the return shape, but behavioral details remain thin.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and immediately specifies the status scope. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 is simple and has an output schema, so return values are covered. But with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no usage guidance, the description leaves gaps around default behavior and when to choose this tool over siblings. Adequate, but not fully complete for an agent operating autonomously.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does add meaning to the status parameter by listing the four possible statuses, which is helpful. However, it says nothing about the limit parameter or its default, nor about how an empty status is interpreted. The compensation is partial at best.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('submissions') and enumerates the exact statuses covered (queued, processing, landed, failed). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like brain_submit or brain_delete, which imply write operations.

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 status enumeration implies a monitoring use-case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_brain or list_entities. No when-not-to-use or exclusion conditions are stated, leaving the choice to inference.

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