athena_cohesion_request_offer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It discloses idempotency, the shared-board presence prerequisite, and the fact that it does not assign work, which are valuable. However, it omits details such as whether publishing is persistent, visible to all board members, or has failure modes related to duplicate request_id 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by two high-value constraints. Every sentence earns its place with 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 high complexity (21 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It provides a good high-level orientation but fails to explain required field relationships, return values, error conditions, or the semantics of optional fields, making it insufficient for safe invocation in many scenarios.

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% across 21 parameters, and the description adds only minimal meaning: it explains the 'kind' parameter (NEED/OFFER) and hints at the agent context via 'active shared-board presence.' It does not explain critical fields like request_id, capabilities, goal_ref, targets, or acceptance_criteria, leaving the agent to infer their semantics.

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: to publish an idempotent typed NEED/OFFER envelope through Message Board V1. It distinguishes the tool by emphasizing that it does not assign work and requires active shared-board presence, which differentiates it from cohesion siblings like matchmaking or work-assignment 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 provides clear context: the publishing agent must already have active shared-board presence, and the tool does not assign work. It implies when to use it (publishing NEED/OFFER envelopes) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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