athena_branch_state

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

The verb 'Read' indicates a read-only operation, which is a key behavioral trait given that no annotations are provided. However, the description does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error behavior, required permissions, or what the returned state looks like. It carries some of the burden but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence that leads with the verb and includes only necessary information. Every phrase adds value: the action, the resource, the scope, and the optional parameter. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain expected return values or state semantics. It does not describe what 'branch lifecycle state' includes, how the state is represented, or how 'metric basis' affects the result. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's output and behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does clarify that the tool operates on 'one branch' (branch_id) and optionally 'one metric basis' (basis_id), providing basic semantic roles. However, it does not explain what a 'metric basis' is, what valid values exist, or the parameter formats, leaving gaps.

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 action ('Read') and the resource ('branch lifecycle state'), and indicates the scope ('for one branch'). It is specific enough to understand the primary function, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as branch_observe or branch_list, which could potentially serve similar purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention specific scenarios, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools. The only implied usage is that it reads branch state, but without further context, an agent cannot decide between this and related tools.

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