athena_discovery_claim_state

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 does add valuable context by stating 'Evidential metadata only' and 'no Y1 canonical rewrite', implying a non-destructive, read-only summarization that avoids altering canonical data. However, it does not disclose the return format, pagination, or whether any side effects exist beyond the exclusion, leaving some ambiguity for a summarize operation.

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, concise sentence of 12 words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes a critical qualifier, with no unnecessary words or repetition. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters with zero schema descriptions, the description is not complete enough. It leaves key questions unanswered: what exactly does the summary contain, what does 'min_independent_support' mean, and how does the 'science-shadow witness groups' concept relate to the input parameters? The domain-specific jargon is not elaborated, so an agent would struggle to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description offers no explanation of the parameters. While 'claim_id' is self-explanatory, 'min_independent_support' is not clearly defined; it could be a threshold, count, or percentage, and its relationship to 'independent witness groups' remains vague. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Summarize') and a distinct resource ('independent V6 science-shadow witness groups'). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like athena_discovery_claim_witness or athena_claim_state by focusing on summarizing groups rather than registering or witnessing claims. The phrase 'Evidential metadata only; no Y1 canonical rewrite' further narrows the purpose.

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 the tool ('summarize independent V6 science-shadow witness groups') and an explicit exclusion ('no Y1 canonical rewrite'), which informs the agent not to use this for canonical rewrites. However, it does not name alternative tools or explain when a different tool would be preferred, so it lacks explicit alternatives.

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