codebreaker_submit

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

The description discloses useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: automatic spacing, the return of a submission ID, and the need to poll with wait_submission. It also notes the special case for Communication problems. No contradiction with annotations (openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false).

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 concise: three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by necessary caveats and usage instructions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

The description is complete enough for a submission tool: it covers the return value, how to retrieve verdicts, rate limiting, and a special parameter case. It does not describe error handling or response format, but given the simple schema and sibling tool context, this is a minor gap.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the optional code_b parameter and its purpose. However, it does not add meaningful detail for problem_id, language, or code (which are fairly self-explanatory), so it provides partial but not complete parameter semantics.

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 opens with 'Submit a solution for evaluation,' a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling get/list/wait tools. It unambiguously identifies the tool's primary function.

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 clear usage context: it mentions the 2-second spacing, instructs to call codebreaker_wait_submission on the returned ID, and explains when to pass code_b for Communication problems. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but as the only submission tool, no alternative is needed.

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