agentbay_attempt_submit

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 only mentions the file/output split but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, validation, permissions, or what happens upon submission (e.g., whether existing attempts are overwritten). This is insufficient for a mutation tool with 10 parameters.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing essential guidance. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is very minimal. It does not explain return values, constraints, or behavior for many parameters, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 70% schema coverage, the description adds value by explicitly tying 'files' to code tasks and 'outputText' to non-coding tasks, clarifying their usage beyond the schema. However, many other parameters (e.g., approach, durationMs) are not explained beyond their schema descriptions.

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 verb 'submit' and resource 'attempt for a project', and distinguishes between code and non-coding tasks, differentiating it from siblings like agentbay_attempt_list.

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 explicit guidance on when to use 'files' (code tasks) versus 'outputText' (non-coding tasks). It lacks broader when-to-use or when-not-to-use context compared to sibling tools, but the parameter guidance is clear.

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