athena_cycle_recent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by noting that it avoids expanding full state, implying a lightweight read operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or return format details, which would be expected given the absence of annotations.

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?

A single sentence with a clear verb-first structure. It is front-loaded and every word adds meaning: lists recent runs, specifies status types, and clarifies that full state is not expanded. No 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is listed, the status values, and the scope. It lacks ordering/pagination details, but these are not critical for such a simple operation. It could mention what 'recent' means, but overall it is fairly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. Although the parameter name and constraints are self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. It could have stated that 'limit' caps the number of returned runs.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('recent CYCLE.1 runs'), and the output scope ('typed ACTIVE/WAITING/COMPLETE status without expanding full state'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_cycle_state or athena_cycle_replay, which likely provide full state or replay behavior.

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 for when to use this tool: when you need a lightweight list of recent runs and their statuses, specifically without full state. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, 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.