Submit Spec for Review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what happens after submission (the monitor checks for contamination) and the state restriction (only draft/rejected). This gives useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not specify return values or failure modes.

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, immediately front-loaded with the verb and object. Every phrase contributes meaningful context without redundancy. It is concise 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?

For a simple submission action with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and the review process. It does not explicitly describe the post-submission status or response, but for this tool's simplicity, the information is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% (both 'name' and 'notes' are described in the schema). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Submit a draft specification for contamination review') and identifies the resource ('draft specification') and the reviewer ('the monitor'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like cleanroom_spec_review (which performs the review) and cleanroom_spec_create (which creates the spec).

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?

It states a clear precondition: 'Only draft or rejected specs can be submitted.' This tells the agent when the tool is applicable. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the constraint implicitly excludes other spec states. The context is sufficient for selection.

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