athena_extraction_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states 'Fetch' (implying a read operation) and mentions 'all task heads', but it does not describe return format, side effects, permissions, or any other behavioral context. The word 'fetch' is a weak implicit indicator of safety, but the description lacks substantive disclosure.

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 sentence and front-loaded with the key action, making it appropriately concise. However, it is slightly under-specified, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5 because every sentence should earn its place but here it does not carry enough informative weight.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain what is returned. It mentions 'task heads' but not their structure or how they support replay/navigation. With one parameter and no annotations, a simple fetch tool still needs more detail about return values and use context to be 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 schema has one parameter 'run_id' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no semantics about its format, origin, or constraints beyond the schema's 'minLength: 1'.

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 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'one extraction run' with the additional detail 'all task heads', making the action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools such as athena_extraction_result or athena_extraction_task, but the replay/navigation context provides some differentiation.

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 'for replay/navigation' implies the tool is intended for those use cases, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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