athena_bandit_select

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions algorithmic traits (posterior, transfer, uncertainty) but does not disclose side effects, state changes, required inputs, or whether it records outcomes. The absence of any mention of read-only behavior or mutation leaves significant gaps.

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 sentence that is relatively concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, the dense technical jargon makes it less readable, and the sentence could be split to improve clarity without adding length.

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 is a complex tool with seven parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, yet the description is only one line. It omits return values, side effects, prerequisites, and relationships to sibling tools. The minimal coverage leaves an agent with minimal context to understand what results to expect or what side effects might occur.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the seven parameters. Names like 'arms' and 'context' are self-evident, while 'transfer_tau', 'exploration_alpha', and 'policy_scope' are left entirely undefined. The algorithm phrase 'cross-regime transfer' hints at transfer_tau, but this is indirect and insufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Select') with a clear resource ('organization/action experiment') and adds algorithm details (diagonal contextual-UCB, local-regime evidence, cross-regime transfer) that distinguish it from sibling tools like athena_bandit_observe or athena_experiment_design. However, the heavy jargon ('local-regime evidence', 'V3 policy prior') may reduce accessibility for an agent not deeply familiar with the domain.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria about when selection via this bandit method is appropriate.

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