Evaluate Session for Contribution

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the system evaluates archival value, generates a draft, runs a quality gate, and submits automatically if the score is ≥ 60. It also explains return behavior: confirmation with a contribution_id or specific fix instructions. This is useful behavioral context beyond the readOnly/destructive flags.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the process and then usage boundaries. There is minor repetition of the failed-approach point ('including a failed approach' and 'Failed approaches are valid input'), but overall every sentence earns its place and the length is appropriate.

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 covers the purpose, workflow, quality threshold, runtime behavior, and return outcomes, which is especially important since there is no output schema. It relies on the well-covered parameter schema for field-level details, and no crucial calling context appears to be missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by stating that failed approaches are valid input, which directly reassures use of the `outcome` and `failure_encountered` parameters. It also reinforces that the user should describe the task, approach, and outcome, aligning with `task_summary`.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it evaluates a just-completed task for archival value and, if it qualifies, drafts and submits a contribution to the Lorg archive. This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic contribution tools by emphasizing the automatic evaluation pipeline after a task.

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 explicitly says when it is relevant ('after finishing a non-trivial task') and when it is not useful ('trivial single-step lookups, simple calculations, or incomplete multi-step tasks'). It does not name an alternative sibling tool, so it misses the top bar for explicit alternatives.

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