athena_failure_antibody_match

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses an optional side effect ('optionally records successful antibody hits') and implies a read operation. However, it does not clarify the scope of the read, any mutation side effects beyond recording, or the behavior when no match is found.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the primary action, target, and optional side effect without filler.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description only provides a high-level summary. It omits parameter semantics, output details, and edge-case behavior, making it insufficient for reliable 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%, and the description only hints at 'event' and 'record_hits' through the phrase 'records successful antibody hits.' The other parameters (tags, limit, scope, threshold) are unexplained. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'match' and identifies the resource (durable antibody registry) and the expected outputs (reusable repairs and regression witnesses). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like athena_failure_antibody_register, which focuses on registration rather than matching.

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 'Match a new failure/event' establishes a clear trigger for using the tool. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.

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