athena_agent_bootstrap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a task-only call observes coordination without side effects, while explicit work_key/targets/claim mode or coordination_mode=AUTO may establish/reuse presence, and duplicate claimed work holds. This gives meaningful behavioral side-effect information beyond the schema. It doesn't cover all side effects (e.g., permissions, return state) but is substantial.

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 a single dense sentence with semicolons, packing a lot of information into a compact form. It's not overly long, but the structure is difficult to parse and could benefit from a list or clearer separation of concepts. It earns a middle score for efficiency without good readability.

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?

This tool has 18 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must explain a lot. It addresses the bootstrap and coordination boundary but leaves the meaning of many parameters, the return value, and lifecycle behavior unspecified. The description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke this tool correctly.

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 0% and the description only clarifies work_key, targets, and coordination_mode. Most of the 18 parameters (task, fetch, remote, profile, issue_repo, source_ref, issue_limit, lease_seconds, replication_reason, shared_remote_mode, continuation_loop_id, coordination_details, coordination_claim_mode, continuation_shared_remote_mode) are left with no explanation in either schema or description. The description partially compensates but is far from adequate.

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 'Cold-start AGENT_BOOT_V1 with an automatic Message Board handshake', which names a specific action and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like athena_agent_refresh, and the jargon 'AGENT_BOOT_V1' is not defined. The rest of the description focuses on coordination boundaries, which clarifies intent but not purpose in ordinary terms.

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 explains the difference between a 'task-only tool call' (observes without claiming work) and explicit coordination parameters that 'cross the start-work boundary', giving a clear conditional usage hint. However, it never names alternative tools or states when to prefer another tool, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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