athena_belief_dual_control

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'PLAN_ONLY' usefully signals that the tool does not execute actions, and 'one-step' indicates the planning horizon. However, it does not state whether the planning has side effects (e.g., storing plans), how results are returned, or any permissions needed.

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 two short sentences, with the 'PLAN_ONLY' flag prominently front-loaded. It is efficient and free of filler, but the term 'finite-belief controller' is jargon that could be expanded slightly without bloat.

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?

Given the complexity of a dual-control solver with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too terse. It omits the meaning of parameters, the nature of the output (a plan?), and how this tool relates to similar siblings. An agent would have difficulty invoking it correctly without external knowledge.

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 does not compensate. It hints at the roles of risk_weight and information_weight via 'utility' and 'information value', but it does not explain context_key, actions, or discount. Parameter names give partial clues, but the description adds little to what the schema already shows.

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 identifies the tool as a 'one-step finite-belief controller' that combines immediate utility, expected next decision utility, and information value. This gives a specific algorithmic role and differentiates it from multistage or general control tools, though the verb is implied rather than explicit.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like athena_dual_control_plan or athena_belief_policy_multistage. The 'PLAN_ONLY' tag hints at a planning-only scope, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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