get_submission_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves status and result, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the 'result' entails (e.g., output, errors). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and parameter meaning without any waste. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics, but lacks behavioral context. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should still address usage and transparency gaps to be more complete.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that 'submission_id' is 'The ID returned when submitting the code,' which clarifies its origin and purpose. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates well, providing essential context that the schema alone lacks. However, it doesn't detail format or constraints.

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 tool's purpose with 'Get the status and result of a previously submitted code,' which specifies the verb (get) and resource (submission status/result). It distinguishes from siblings like 'submit_code' (creation) and 'list_my_submissions' (listing multiple), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_problem_details' or 'list_problems' in terms of scope. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 implies usage context by stating 'previously submitted code,' suggesting it should be used after submission, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_my_submissions' for multiple submissions or 'get_problem_details' for problem info. No exclusions or clear alternatives are named, leaving usage somewhat inferred.

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