athena_godboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that results are deterministic, that there are exactly seven views, and importantly that ranks/titles/scores are game-state metadata and 'never evidence or authority' — a critical caveat. It doesn't explicitly say the operation is read-only, but 'Return' implies no side effects; still, it doesn't mention potential errors or freshness.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and key resource, and the second adds an essential caveat. Every word contributes meaning, even though the first sentence uses domain jargon (P3+, scoped).

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 output schema and no annotations, the description must explain more. It states what the tool returns but does not describe what the seven views are, how the optional parameters affect them, or any return structure details. The absence of parameter semantics is a significant gap for a tool that accepts three configurable options.

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 three optional parameters (limit, remote, shared_remote_mode) with 0% schema description coverage. The description provides zero explanation of these parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage. It does not clarify what 'remote' or 'shared_remote_mode' control, how they affect the seven views, or what 'limit' applies to.

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 starts with the specific verb 'Return' and precisely identifies the resource: seven deterministic leaderboard views over P3+ scoped verified Impossible Challenge completions. The detail about 'game-state metadata' differentiates it from sibling leaderboard-like tools (e.g., athena_hall_of_immortals) by establishing a unique scope and purpose.

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 this tool — whenever you need leaderboard views for P3+ verified completions — but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives might be preferable. There is no mention of exclusions or competing tools, so the usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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