athena_evidence_spectral

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states that the tool 'computes' metrics, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose output format, side effects, prerequisites, or any other behavioral traits beyond the computation itself.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every phrase contributes to identifying the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a specialized statistical tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter explanations. The description fails to explain what 'effective-N' and 'participation-ratio diversity' mean operationally, what the output looks like, or how dimensions and min_confidence affect results, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 does not explain the parameters. It implicitly ties claim_id to 'claim's witnesses,' but dimensions and min_confidence are left entirely undefined. The description adds no meaningful semantic information about these parameters.

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 'Compute' and names precise resources: 'metadata-similarity effective-N' and 'spectral participation-ratio diversity' for 'science-shadow claim's witnesses.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools by identifying unique metrics and scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or related sibling tools, so the agent must infer suitability from the name and description alone.

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