athena_discovery_claim_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a non-mutation guarantee regarding Y1 canonical claim authority, which is valuable. However, it does not explain other behavioral aspects such as return value, persistence semantics of the V6 record, or any side effects beyond the shadow scope.

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, tightly packed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word adds meaning (V6, science-shadow, without mutating Y1 canonical claim authority).

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a domain-specific description that assumes knowledge of V6 and Y1 claim systems. An agent would not know what qualifies as a V6 science-shadow claim, what the return value is, or how the three parameters relate to the registration. The description is not self-sufficient.

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 provides no explanation of scope, claim_key, or statement. The parameter names are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, particularly for the optional scope parameter.

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 the action (register), the resource (a V6 science-shadow claim record), and specifies a key non-goal (without mutating Y1 canonical claim authority). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_claim_register, which likely handles canonical Y1 claims.

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 use for V6 science-shadow claims and explicitly excludes Y1 canonical claim authority. It does not name an alternative tool, but the exclusion provides clear when-not guidance. Sibling tools include athena_claim_register, which is the likely alternative for canonical claims, though not explicitly referenced.

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