athena_extraction_expand_result

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 does disclose a key trait: expansion 'creates work contracts, not semantic results,' and mentions bounding limits. However, it does not cover side effects, permissions, or state changes, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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, compact and front-loaded with the key action. Every clause adds value: the seed source, the constraints, and the output nature. No redundancy or fluff.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It explains the high-level purpose but not parameter semantics, return structure, or what 'work contracts' entail. The agent may struggle to know exactly what to expect from this tool.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters (actor, result_id, transforms) with zero documentation. The description only hints that 'one witnessed EXTRES payload' likely maps to result_id, but it does not clarify actor or transforms. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter meaning.

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 states a clear action: using a witnessed EXTRES payload as a seed for next-generation expansion. It also distinguishes the tool by noting that expansion 'creates work contracts, not semantic results,' which contrasts with sibling extraction tools. However, the heavy use of jargon (EXTRES, EXTRUN) without explanation reduces accessibility.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a witnessed EXTRES payload to expand, with constraints from parent EXTRUN depth and task-per-generation limits. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or 'when not to use,' but the context is specific enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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