Submit a solution

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that this is a real submission with side effects, counts against a rate limit, polls by default, and returns the submission id, verdict, and passed/total. This aligns with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, with no contradiction.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the action and default behavior, the critical side-effect and rate-limit warning with the safer alternative, and the return value summary. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 essential operational context: real submission, rate limit, local verification, polling default, and return fields. Given the output schema exists and the input schema documents parameters, nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool safely.

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 the input schema already documents all six parameters. The description clarifies the default polling behavior and timeout context, but it does not add meaningful new meaning about individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Submit source code to a contest problem') and clearly differentiates from sibling repovive_judge_solution by noting this records a REAL submission on the account. It also states the polling behavior and return contents, so an agent can identify the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'verify locally with repovive_judge_solution first' names the alternative and the condition for using it. The warning about the ~10 submissions/minute limit also tells the agent when this tool is appropriate versus safer local verification, leaving no inference required.

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