athena_bionano_convergence_gate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior: assumption-incompatible or inconclusive values return HOLD, and notes version stability (V2 does not change V1 semantics). It does not describe the return format for conclusive values or whether the tool has side effects, but 'Evaluate' suggests a read-only nature.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by behavioral semantics. No superfluous words or repetition of schema information.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should cover expected return values and any preconditions. It specifies HOLD for certain cases but does not indicate what conclusive evaluation returns (e.g., 'pass', 'fail', a normalized measure). The parameter list is partially explained but not all param combinations or edge cases (e.g., all nulls) are addressed.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description labels each witness type and connects them to the parameter names (nth_term_limit, ratio_limit, root_limit, contraction_q, spectral_radius). It does not explain detailed evaluation criteria for each, but it adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 evaluates caller-supplied convergence/stability witnesses, listing the specific witness types (nth-term limit, ratio/root limit, contraction constant, spectral radius). This distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying a precise verb (evaluate), resource (witnesses), and scope (only caller-supplied).

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 'Evaluate only caller-supplied' implies that the tool does not compute witnesses itself, and the HOLD return for incompatible/inconclusive values gives a hint of expected behavior. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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