submit_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals that submissions undergo review for security, utility, maintenance, and uniqueness before publication, setting expectations that this is not an immediate, guaranteed listing. It doesn't cover response format or failure cases, but the review process disclosure is meaningful context.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, the second adds usage context. Every word earns its place.

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 5-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage trigger, and post-submission review process. It is adequately complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it, though it doesn't describe the response shape or potential errors.

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 schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions and enums (100% coverage), so the description is not required to add parameter-level detail. It doesn't, and baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the action ('Submit'), the resource ('a new AI agent tool to SkillsIndex'), and the purpose ('indexing and scoring'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_tool, search_tools, and compare_tools by being the submission entry point.

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?

Provides an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Use this when you discover a useful tool that isn't in the directory yet.' While it doesn't name alternative tools for checking existence, the conditional phrasing implies checking the directory first, giving adequate guidance.

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