codebreaker_get_submission

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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: the submitted code is only available for your own submissions, and the pending=true state indicates incomplete grading. These are not inferable from the annotation alone, adding genuine transparency.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose (get full submission results) and then a concise caveat about pending submissions. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the return structure comprehensively (score, per-subtask/per-testcase verdicts, times, memory, compile error, code), plus the ownership constraint and pending behavior. Since there is no output schema, this is fully 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?

The description does not add any meaning to the submission_id parameter; it only appears in the schema as an integer with no further explanation. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not clarify where the ID comes from or any constraints beyond its name.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly lists all elements of the full submission results (score, verdicts, times, memory, compile error, code). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like codebreaker_list_submissions and codebreaker_wait_submission by explicitly stating the full result scope and the pending condition.

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 explicit guidance: when pending=true, use codebreaker_wait_submission instead of polling manually. This names the alternative tool directly and gives a clear condition for when to use it, which is excellent usage guidance.

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