athena_gp_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does state it is a read operation and that it applies specifically to fixed-kernel GPs, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens if the context_key is invalid or if the GP is not fixed-kernel, nor does it describe the return format beyond naming the two data items. This is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without wasted words. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 the tool has one required parameter with no semantics, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully enable correct invocation. It omits an explanation of context_key and does not describe the output structure or error behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 provides no description for context_key beyond type 'string', and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention context_key at all, so an agent has no way to know what value to supply or what the key refers to. This is a critical gap.

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 as reading fixed-kernel GP hyperparameters and observed-point count, with a specific verb ('Read') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling GP tools like athena_gp_hyperfit (fitting) and athena_gp_predict (prediction) by focusing on state inspection.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among the many GP-related siblings, it does not mention that this is for inspecting current state, nor does it exclude cases like fitting or predicting. No context is given for when this read is appropriate.

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