think_verify_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 helpfully discloses validation, formatting, and a failure mode ('verification_failed instead of pretending a pass ran'), but does not state side effects, persistence, auth needs, or what happens on success.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action verb and source tool. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, validation behavior, and failure reporting. No obvious waste, though it could be slightly more compact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with four parameters at 0% coverage and no annotations, the description leaves required parameter meaning, side effects, and workflow constraints largely unexplained. The failure-mode note helps but is not enough.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions refutation and self_consistency, but omits the required problem and conclusion parameters and gives no format, default, or constraint details for any of the four inputs.

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?

States a specific verb 'Submit' and resource 'refutation reply (and any self-consistency samples) gathered from think_verify', and clarifies it validates and formats the verdict. It names the sibling think_verify as the source of inputs, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from think_submit.

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?

Usage is implied: use after think_verify when refutation replies have been gathered. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to alternatives like think_submit or think_verify, nor any stated prerequisites.

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