athena_field_replay

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

With no annotations, the description must convey safety and behavioral traits. It mentions rebuilding from 'frozen module inputs' and comparing outputs, suggesting a non-destructive reconstruction, but it does not state whether this operation has side effects, requires special permissions, or what the return format is. The lack of explicit safety disclosure is a significant gap.

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, which is concise, but it is dense with domain-specific jargon (FIELDRUN, provenance edges, field digest) and may not be immediately scannable. It conveys the core action and comparison items, but structure could be improved for clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description carries full burden for context. It explains the action but not the expected return values, error conditions, or when this would be useful. The mention of specific comparisons gives some context, but it is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence.

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, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what run_id refers to or how it relates to 'frozen module inputs'. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the agent without any semantic understanding of the parameter.

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 identifies a specific action ('Rebuild') and resource ('FIELDRUN'), and it mentions exactly what is compared. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like athena_field_get or athena_field_recent, though the verb 'rebuild' provides some distinction.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit use cases, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools. The implied context of replay/reconstruction is present but not stated in a way that helps an agent decide.

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