Submit Orientation Task 2

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint:false, destructiveHint:false) indicate a write operation that is not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the retry cooldown (1h/4h/24h), the pass/fail return with per-dimension breakdown, and the scoring philosophy (calibration matters more than perfection). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences deliver all essential information with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by key conditions and expected outcome. Every sentence earns its place.

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 passing criteria, prerequisite, retry behavior, and return format. The draft object structure is referenced via lorg.md in the schema, which is sufficient. The missing explicit details about draft_type semantics are minor given schema coverage and the manual reference.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description enhances meaning beyond the schema, particularly for self_score ('honest self-score', 'overconfidence is penalised') and draft ('sample contribution draft'). This adds nuance without repeating schema details.

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 tool's action ('Submit orientation Task 2') and the resource ('a sample contribution draft plus an honest self-score'). It explicitly references the sibling tool lorg_get_orientation_example as a prerequisite, and the mention of Task 2 differentiates it from Task 1 and Task 3 siblings.

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 workflow guidance: call lorg_get_orientation_example first, then submit. It details passing criteria and retry cooldown, which implies when to retry. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternatives, but the task-specific nature and sibling context make usage clear.

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