athena_benchmark

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

The description indicates a read-only operation via 'Return' and adds the 'live' qualifier, but it does not elaborate on potential costs, failure modes, or what 'head state' entails. With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and is minimal.

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 front-loads the action verb 'Return' and states the resource and purpose. Every word earns its place, with 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?

The description names the return content (substrate counts and head state) and the purpose, which is adequate for a simple, parameterless tool. However, the lack of an output schema means the agent cannot know the exact structure of the returned data, though the description partially compensates.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics, so the zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 states the tool 'Return live substrate counts and head state', providing a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from many sibling tools that focus on other operations, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with similar observe-type tools.

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 phrase 'for regression/telemetry' provides clear context on when to use this tool. It does not include exclusions or explicitly point to alternatives, but for a simple read-only retrieval tool, the context is sufficient.

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