submit_code

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 action ('Submit code') but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether submissions are queued or processed immediately, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and each subsequent sentence clearly explaining a parameter. There is no wasted text, and the structure efficiently conveys essential information.

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 that there is an output schema (which should cover return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and three parameters, the description lacks context on behavioral aspects like authentication, side effects, or error handling. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 meaningful semantics for all three parameters beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'problem_id' is an 'internal system ID', 'language' includes examples like 'C', 'C++', 'Python3', and 'code' is 'the source code to submit'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of 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 action ('Submit code') and the target ('Online Judge for a specific problem'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_submission_status' or 'list_my_submissions', which are related but distinct operations.

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., needing a problem ID from 'get_problem_details' or 'list_problems'), nor does it clarify its role in the submission workflow relative to siblings like checking status or listing submissions.

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