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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does describe the payload (capabilities, decision types, endpoints, guidance), implying a non-destructive read, but it says nothing about idempotency, side effects, or whether this returns static documentation vs. live state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the returned contents enumerated after. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the call returns (capabilities, decision types, endpoints, guidance), which partially compensates for the missing output schema. Only the absence of any call-ordering guidance relative to atena_decide keeps it from being fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-related gaps exist.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('ATENA capabilities') and enumerates the returned content: decision types, endpoints, and agent-use guidance. It is clearly a discovery/introspection tool, though it never names the sibling atena_decide to sharpen the boundary.

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?

'agent-use guidance' hints that this is meant to be consulted by an agent, and the enumerate-what-you-get framing implies a discovery step before acting. However, it never explicitly says when to call this versus atena_decide, nor any prerequisite or ordering.

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