athena_deployment_verify_receipt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool replays bindings and only verifies receipt structure, not cluster observation, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects it might have, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant uncertainty for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 concise, with only two sentences, and the primary action is front-loaded. The second sentence is terse and somewhat cryptic ('PASS verifies receipt structure') but still adds a key distinction. Overall, it is efficient without unnecessary preamble.

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 six required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides no parameter explanations, return value details, or error handling context. This is a verification tool, so an agent would need to know what a PASS/FAIL means, what the success criteria are, and how to interpret the replayed bindings. The description is far too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not mention any parameters. Although parameter names like 'expected_plan_digest' and 'expected_source_head' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description provides no additional meaning or context about how they relate to the receipt or how to format them. This is a significant gap given all six parameters are required.

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's function: replaying the exact plan/image/source/state bindings of an activation receipt. It also distinguishes itself from independent cluster observation, which differentiates it from sibling verification tools. The verb 'replay' and the resource 'activation receipt' are specific and unambiguous.

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 on when to use the tool: to verify receipt structure. It explicitly excludes independent cluster observation, helping the agent avoid misusing it. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance beyond that exclusion.

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