athena_collective_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool selects geometry, right-sizes workers, preserves reserve, and returns a packet, but it does not state whether this mutates state, requires permissions, or has side effects. The read-only nature of a 'plan' is implied but not explicit, leaving behavioral expectations unclear.

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 cramming many concepts with slash-separated geometry names and a chain of actions. While not overly long, it is not efficiently structured; the list of geometries (HIVE/SWARM/PACK/FLOCK/HERD/POD) adds noise and could be separated. The intended meaning is obscured by the run-on format.

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 a complex schema with a required nested signals object and 5 parameters, yet the description provides no explanation of what signals mean, how they influence geometry selection, or what the returned coordinate packet contains. Without an output schema or annotations, the description is critically incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the description fails to map any of its language to the actual parameters. It mentions 'reserve capacity' but never names reserve_fraction; it discusses 'right-size workers' without linking to max_workers or unit_cost. The signals object and lineage are entirely absent from the description, so the agent cannot infer parameter meanings.

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 identifies a multi-step planning action: selecting geometry, right-sizing workers, preserving reserve capacity, allocating roles/topology, and returning a coordinate packet. It differentiates from siblings like athena_collective_allocate or athena_collective_restructure by specifying marginal utility and reserve capacity, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'plan' or 'compute' to fully anchor its purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is a planning step, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with sibling tools such as athena_collective_restructure or athena_collective_allocate. The 'plan' in the name hints at usage, but the description itself offers no directional cues.

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