athena_extraction_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and succeeds in disclosing key behavioral traits: it only creates PLANNED contracts and never fabricates semantic transform results. This provides a clear safety boundary. However, it omits side effects, permissions, and response details, preventing a perfect score.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, with the first stating the core purpose and the second adding a critical boundary. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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's complexity (6 params, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description is insufficient for operational use. It provides high-level context but does not explain what a PLANNED contract entails, how to set parameters like max_depth or transforms, or what the return value looks like. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly.

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 provides zero information about the six parameters. With 0% schema coverage, the burden falls entirely on the description, which fails to explain the meaning or role of seed_ref, seed, actor, max_depth, transforms, or max_tasks_per_generation. This is a critical gap.

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 'Create' with a resource 'bounded AOR SX.1 extraction run.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like athena_extraction_run by emphasizing that this is a planning step that creates PLANNED work contracts only, clearly separating planning from execution.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool is for planning an extraction run, not executing it. The phrase 'Planning creates typed PLANNED work contracts only' indicates when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like athena_extraction_run for actual execution, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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