athena_extraction_complete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that outputs become addressable EXTRES results and that completion does not imply output equivalence, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it omits many behavioral aspects such as state changes, failure modes, or mutation side effects, 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains zero fluff. It conveys purpose, constraints, and a key caveat efficiently, making it well-structured for quick agent parsing.

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 a nested witness object, the description should provide more context. It explains the high-level purpose and a caveat, but lacks details on verification semantics, what 'EXTRES result' means, how outputs are handled, and post-conditions. The tool's complexity and extensive sibling set demand a richer description to fully guide invocation.

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 parameter meaning. It vaguely references 'outputs' and 'verified witness' but does not explain task_id, actor, or the structure of the witness object (e.g., what 'ref' means). The conceptual link to a 'planned extraction task' hints at task_id, but the description does not provide sufficient parameter-level detail.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Complete one PLANNED extraction task with one or more actual outputs and a verified witness.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_extraction_plan and athena_extraction_run by emphasizing completion of a planned task. It also adds distinctive detail about outputs becoming EXTRES results, further clarifying its role.

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 phrase 'PLANNED extraction task' implies this tool is for tasks that already have a plan, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of alternatives like athena_extraction_run or athena_extraction_fail. No exclusions or contrasting conditions are given, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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