athena_field_compile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds richly. It discloses key behaviors: proposals are UNMEASURED, identical signatures only merge provenance, conflicting ranking/routing data fail closed to CONFLICT, disputed operands are removed, and semantic similarity never merges. This is substantial beyond what any structured field could convey.

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 dense sentences with no filler. Key behaviors are front-loaded, and every clause adds unique information about merging, conflict resolution, or output type. It is appropriately compact for the complexity it conveys.

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 a complex schema, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must do more heavy lifting. It explains the core compilation and conflict rules well, but it omits critical context such as the role of seed_ref, the effect of persist, and the shape of the returned FIELD.1 candidates. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'module_outputs' (interpreting them as SX/RAG/Y/GAP/HUG/branch/AOR residuals) and hints at 'explicit_candidates' through 'explicit ranking/routing data,' but it leaves seed_ref, actor, persist, and ecosystem entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter schema with no parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb 'assemble' and the resource: it takes SX/RAG/Y/GAP/HUG/branch/AOR residuals and produces 'typed FIELD.1 action candidates.' This is specific enough to separate it from generic 'field' tools like athena_field_get or athena_field_replay, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 context is implied: this tool should be used when one has residuals from the named modules and needs to compile them into action candidates. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' vs 'when not to use' guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned, making it more implied than explicit.

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