list_my_submissions

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 mentions authentication ('authenticated user') and the return format ('JSON string'), but lacks details on rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond offset/limit parameters), error handling, or what 'latest' means (e.g., sorted by time). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second clarifies the return format. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return values, but it lacks context on authentication requirements, pagination, or error cases. It meets basic needs but has clear gaps for a read operation.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters, leaving both 'offset' and 'limit' undocumented. However, with only 2 parameters and default values provided in the schema, the baseline is 3 as the description doesn't add value but the schema has minimal complexity.

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 specific verbs ('fetch', 'returns') and identifies the resource ('list of latest submissions made by the authenticated user'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_submission_status' (which focuses on individual submissions) and 'submit_code' (which creates submissions), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more differentiated from 'list_problems'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'list_problems' or 'get_submission_status'. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context for selection.

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