athena_cohesion_duplicate_guard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important non-mutating, non-authoritative behavior. It also reveals that the tool reads shared-current Message Board claims, which implies a read-only snapshot. However, it does not describe the structure of 'treatment options' or how results are returned.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence leads with the main action and detailed scope; the second provides clear behavioral exclusions. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, and while the description gives a solid high-level purpose and constraints, it does not explain the output format or list of 'treatment options.' This leaves ambiguity for an agent trying to interpret results, so the description is not fully complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description only partially compensates by explaining classification dimensions like work-key/task/target collisions, JOIN/REPLICA intent, and partition evidence. Several parameters (remote, task, replication_reason, shared_remote_mode) are not addressed, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 function: "Read shared-current Message Board claims and classify... into non-authoritative treatment options." It uses specific verbs (read, classify) and a specific resource, and explicitly lists what it never does, which distinguishes it from sibling cohesion tools.

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 for pre-action duplicate detection by referencing exact collisions, fuzzy warnings, and partition evidence. It also provides exclusions by stating the tool never mutates, auto-joins, assigns work, fabricates MATA semantics, or grants execution authority, but it does not name specific alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use scenarios.

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