Submit Room Answer

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits that annotations do not cover: incorrect answers may consume an attempt, a correct answer ends the run, and the score is deterministic. This goes beyond the minimal mutation hints and helps the agent predict side effects.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs the key consequences with no filler. Every clause adds value.

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?

With a 4-parameter action that involves idempotency and state versioning, the description covers the main behavioral outcomes. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it leaves retry/stale-version behavior to the schema.

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 the schema already explains all four parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but that is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness.

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 states a specific verb ('Submit'), a specific resource ('a candidate answer to the final room challenge'), and the outcome ('a correct answer ends the run and returns a deterministic score'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like start_run, get_run, and use, which handle different phases or actions.

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 gives clear context: this is the tool for submitting the final challenge answer. It also implies when not to use it (e.g., before reaching the final room) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to siblings like use or inspect.

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