athena_dependency_alarm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It describes the propagation mechanism and constraints (weight, hop decay, threshold, bounded radius), but it does not mention side effects, return value, or whether it mutates state. The algorithmic details add some context, but significant behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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, front-loaded with the main verb ('Propagate'), and contains no redundant wording. Every phrase adds meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 description explains the core algorithm and all parameters, but it omits the output format, edge cases, and side-effect behavior. With no output schema or annotations, these missing details leave an agent uncertain about what to expect from the tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps weight, hop decay, threshold, and bounded radius directly to the schema's edge weight, hop_decay, threshold, and max_hops. It interprets the parameters conceptually, though it does not explicitly define seeds beyond implying them as the 'failure/change alarm' origin.

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 propagates a failure/change alarm over explicit influence/dependency edges, with specific algorithmic controls (weight, hop decay, threshold, bounded radius). This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_graph_path or athena_dense_navigate.

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 implies usage context: you can use this when you need to propagate alarms along dependency edges with configurable decay/threshold/radius. The phrase 'only over explicit influence/dependency edges' sets a clear boundary, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance.

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