athena_extraction_fail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavioral context: 'Failure creates evidence; it does not fabricate output.' This signals that the tool records a failure event as evidence rather than inventing a successful result, which is valuable for an agent selecting the tool. It also implies the 'witnessed' aspect verifies authenticity, though it does not enumerate all side effects or permissions.

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 short sentences with no superfluous words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a single critical behavioral note, earning its place.

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 adequate for a simple failure-recording tool but leaves gaps due to the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter elaboration. It does not clarify the return behavior, the requirement that witness.verified must be true (though visible in the schema), or any potential side effects beyond 'creates evidence'. While the schema covers some structured details, the description does not add enough to be fully complete.

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 description only hints at 'reason' and 'witnessed' but does not explain the parameters task_id, actor, or the structure of the witness object (including the verified field that must be true). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics, leaving the agent dependent solely on the raw schema.

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 ('Record') and a specific resource ('witnessed extraction-task failure'), which directly conveys the tool's purpose. It also differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing 'failure' and adds a key behavioral trait ('does not fabricate output'), further distinguishing it from tools that might generate or complete results.

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 the use case: when a witnessed extraction task fails with an explicit reason. It provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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