athena_budget_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: it works 'subject to observable remaining budgets' and explicitly states 'unknown cost is penalized, not invented', which clarifies it won't fabricate cost data. However, it does not mention side effects or return values.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the action ('Allocate tasks to workers') and packs the entire allocation logic into a concise formula. There is 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this one-sentence description is incomplete. It omits parameter details, return behavior, and conditions under which it should be used, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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%, so this description must compensate. It only alludes to tasks, workers, and remaining_budget conceptually, and does not explain optional parameters like alpha, beta, scope, or max_assignments_per_worker. This is inadequate for a 7-parameter tool.

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 states a clear action: 'Allocate tasks to workers' and provides the allocation formula (demand x capability fit x availability x measured efficiency) plus the key constraint of penalizing unknown costs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_collective_allocate by specifying its unique approach.

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 tool's usage is implied through 'Allocate tasks to workers ... subject to observable remaining budgets', but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like athena_schedule_multiperiod or athena_collective_allocate. It lacks exclusions or direct comparisons.

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