athena_cycle_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no side effects), required permissions, or any rate limits. It also does not clarify whether the operation modifies anything or whether repeated calls are safe. The return behavior is only vaguely noted as 'RETURN state'.

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 sentence with no filler words. It lists the fetched items compactly. However, the term 'CYCLE.1' is cryptic and the sentence structure is ambiguous (whether all items are returned or just the state). Despite this, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the verb.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must clarify return values. It only says 'RETURN state' without specifying the shape of the state or whether the phase artifacts, wait requirements, and receipts are included in the response. The domain-specific terms ('CYCLE.1', 'phase artifacts', 'public phase-event receipts') are unexplained, leaving gaps for an agent without additional context.

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 explain the cycle_id parameter. The parameter name is self-explanatory to some degree, and the description mentions 'CYCLE.1 state' which loosely ties to cycle identity, but it does not specify where to obtain cycle_id, its format, or its meaning beyond the schema. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 ('Fetch') and names the resource ('persisted CYCLE.1 state'), and lists additional fetched items (phase artifacts, wait requirements, public phase-event receipts). It is clear this tool retrieves cycle state, but the term 'CYCLE.1' is ambiguous and it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like athena_cycle_recent or athena_cycle_replay.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as athena_cycle_recent, athena_cycle_replay, or athena_cycle_advance. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. The only contextual hint is 'persisted', implying a read of stored state, but no explicit alternatives or when-to-use direction.

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