athena_field_recent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key trait: the tool avoids expanding full candidate payloads, which helps set expectations about response size. However, it omits other useful context like ordering, pagination behavior, or whether receipts include timestamps, so transparency is only partial.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds a meaningful qualifier. No filler words, no redundancy, and every word earns 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?

For a simple list operation with a single optional limit parameter, the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (receipts) and what it deliberately avoids (full candidate payloads). The main gap is the lack of any output structure, which is mitigated by the simplicity of the tool and the 'receipts' concept.

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 coverage is 0% because the description never mentions the 'limit' parameter. While the schema fully documents the limit with minimum and maximum bounds, the description adds no extra meaning (e.g., how limit interacts with 'recent' or whether it is optional). Given low coverage, the description should have compensated but does not.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('recent persisted FIELDRUN receipts'). The qualifier 'without expanding full candidate payloads' further differentiates it from tools like athena_field_get or athena_field_replay that likely handle expanded payloads or replay behavior.

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 when to use the tool (when needing a lightweight list of recent field-run receipts) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It never names sibling tools like athena_field_get or athena_field_replay, so an agent must infer the right choice from the 'without expanding' hint.

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