athena_collective_evaluate

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose behavioral details by naming the penalties it exposes (dense-connectivity, duplication, switching, contagion, maintenance), which suggests a read-only analytical role. However, it does not clarify side effects, return format, or whether any state changes occur.

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 packs the core purpose and key concepts without padding. Every phrase contributes, though the heavy jargon may reduce immediate clarity. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool, though not exemplary in readability.

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 complexity of a nested configuration object with 14 parameters and no output schema, this description is insufficient. It provides an overview of what the tool computes but omits how to configure the evaluation, what the response looks like, and when to use it. The penalty hints are helpful but not enough to fully understand the tool's operation.

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 description provides no parameter-specific information, while the schema includes a nested configuration object with 14 properties. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no mapping between the description's 'explicit cost/output vectors' or 'penalties' and the actual configuration fields, such as coupling, switching, or redundancy.

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 ('Score') and resource ('concrete group organization'), and specifies key outputs (cost/output vectors, return-on-group-organization, and penalties). This clearly indicates the tool's function, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like athena_collective_health or athena_collective_plan.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context. The implied use case is evaluating a group organization, but this is not made explicit.

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