athena_dual_control_plan

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 discloses a key trait: the planner is plan-only and requires the agent to execute just the first action then replan. However, it does not mention whether the tool has side effects, what it returns, or any required setup, leaving significant gaps.

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 compact at two sentences with no redundant phrasing. However, the first sentence is dense with jargon and the second is an imperative rather than a descriptive explanation, making it less effective than a slightly longer, clearer version would be.

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 the tool's high complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too sparse. It provides a high-level concept but lacks operational details on how to set parameters, what results to expect, or how to integrate the planned actions. An agent would likely struggle to invoke this correctly without additional context.

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%, so the description must compensate for the 8 parameters. It mentions conceptual elements like 'control reward', 'transition-parameter information value', and 'predictive risk', which loosely map to discount, information_weight, and risk_aversion, but it never explicitly ties these to the schema fields. Parameters like initial_context, actions, horizon, and beam_width are left entirely undefined.

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 tool as a 'dual-control planner' with a specific combination of objectives (control reward, information value, predictive risk), which distinguishes it from broader planning tools. The 'PLAN_ONLY' tag adds clarity but 'bounded proxy' remains unexplained, and it does not explicitly contrast with closely related sibling tools like athena_belief_dual_control.

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 does not state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The instruction 'PLAN_ONLY; execute first action then observe/replan' gives some operational guidance but is more behavioral than a usage guideline, and no alternative tools are referenced.

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