athena_branch_observe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions applying a hibernation/resurrection policy but does not explain what this does to the branch, whether it is reversible, or any side effects. The behavior is not transparent enough.

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?

One concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without wasted words.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too terse. It does not describe return values, policy effects, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only indirectly references reward and witness. It does not explain branch_id, basis_id, policy, actor, metadata, or triggers. The meaning of 'calibrated' and the structure of witness are not elaborated.

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's action: record a witnessed calibrated branch reward observation and apply an EWMA policy. It distinguishes from sibling observe tools by specifying 'branch reward' and the policy component.

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 implies usage when a branch reward observation is witnessed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like athena_transition_observe or athena_belief_observe. No when-not-to-use or alternatives are given.

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