athena_equivalence_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It labels the operation as 'read' (suggesting non-mutating) but does not explain what the 'active witnessed relation/conflict head' means, whether there are prerequisites, what the response looks like, or how errors are handled. The jargon is unexplained for an AI agent unfamiliar with the equivalence domain.

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 sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is appropriately short for what it conveys, though the density of domain jargon means it could benefit from a bit more explanation without being wordy.

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 description is incomplete given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, output schema, or rich sibling context. It does not explain what the 'head' represents, what the tool returns, or how it fits into the equivalence workflow (observe, resolve, snapshot). This is insufficient for an agent to know the full behavior and expected output.

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 by explaining the three parameters (context_id, left_id, right_id). It mentions 'one unordered pair' and 'dedup context', which likely map to the IDs and context, but it does not explicitly define each parameter's meaning or relationship. The description adds minimal value over the raw parameter names.

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 ('read') and identifies the precise resource: the active witnessed relation/conflict head for one unordered pair in a dedup context. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_equivalence_observe or athena_equivalence_resolve_conflict.

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 a read/query use case but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., athena_equivalence_snapshot or athena_equivalence_observe). It gives some context ('one unordered pair', 'dedup context') but lacks exclusions or alternative tool references.

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