athena_claim_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Read' clearly indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what happens for invalid claim_ids, whether any special permissions are required, or what the actual return format is. For a simple single-parameter read, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb and resource. No filler or unnecessary detail. It is as concise as possible while conveying the core purpose.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is the only guidance. For a simple read, the description covers the basic purpose, but it does not explain domain-specific terms ('typed authority state', 'witness history pointers') or mention potential errors or return values. It is minimal but not fully sufficient for an unfamiliar agent.

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 the description must explain claim_id. It adds the semantic that the tool operates 'for one claim,' implying claim_id identifies the specific claim. However, it does not explain the format or origin of claim_id, or clarify what 'typed authority state' and 'witness history pointers' mean in relation to the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies a clear resource ('typed authority state and witness history pointers') scoped to 'one claim.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_claim_list (which lists claims) and athena_claim_challenge (which challenges a claim).

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 implicitly tells when to use the tool (when you need to read the current state of a single claim), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. With many sibling tools, some exclusionary guidance would help, but the context is implied by the wording.

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