athena_gp_joint_design

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and prerequisites. It only states the ranking computation and 'DESIGN_ONLY', without explaining return format, safety, or whether the hyperposterior must already exist.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a terse 'DESIGN_ONLY.' marker. It wastes no words but the density and unexplained fragment reduce 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?

For a complex tool with 11 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits prerequisites, output details, and how 'design only' affects behavior.

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% and the description names no parameters. It only alludes to decision weights and information weights implicitly via 'EVSI' and 'entropy reduction', leaving most of the 11 parameters unexplained.

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 the tool's function: ranking candidate GP measurements using a combined EVSI and entropy reduction objective. It distinguishes from sibling tools by the unique 'joint design' criterion, though it does not explicitly name 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?

The description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The fragment 'DESIGN_ONLY' hints at a design-phase limitation but is not explained, leaving the agent without clear context for selecting this tool over siblings like athena_gp_decision_evsi.

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