athena_discovery_claim_witness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one key behavior: 'never promotes Y1 authority.' However, it does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or return behavior, leaving significant transparency gaps for a mutation-like 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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and add a critical behavioral qualifier. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 7 parameters, including nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a minimal overview of what the tool does and does not explain what constitutes a 'science-shadow witness,' how 'result' is used, or what happens after attaching. This is insufficient for a tool of this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only adds meaning for 'kind' (the three possible values SUPPORTS/FALSIFIES/INCONCLUSIVE) and 'independence_key' (explicit). The remaining parameters (claim_id, result, evidence, confidence, actor) are not explained in the description or schema, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 action ('Attach'), the resource ('science-shadow witness'), and the specific classification values ('SUPPORTS/FALSIFIES/INCONCLUSIVE'). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by clarifying that it does not promote Y1 authority, which sets it apart from related claim/witness operations.

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 when to use this tool (when attaching a science-shadow witness with an explicit independence key) and provides a clear exclusion: it never promotes Y1 authority. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide detailed when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of being fully explicit.

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