athena_hug_register

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the registration only creates a CANDIDATE and does not assert the implementation is tested/canonical, which is a key behavioral trait. It doesn't cover side effects or return values, but the core state transition is disclosed.

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 three sentences long, each adding necessary information: the purpose, mandatory fields, and the behavioral limitation. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, with no wasted words.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral limitation, but it does not explain return values, error conditions, or the lifecycle of a CANDIDATE. Given the tool's complexity, 8 parameters, nested objects, and many sibling tools, more context would be needed for an agent to fully understand the implications of registration.

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 0% description coverage, so the description needs to compensate. It lists the six parameter meanings (io,au,fx,lm,er,st) and mentions algorithm ref, implementation digest, and schemas are mandatory, which adds some value. However, it does not explain what these parameters mean, leaving the agent without sufficient semantic grounding for invocation.

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 opens with 'Register an exact HUG implementation identity,' which clearly specifies the verb (register) and the resource (implementation identity). It also distinguishes itself from related tools by stating 'Registration creates CANDIDATE only; it does not assert semantic QHUG is tested/canonical,' contrasting with promotes/verification tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: all six parameter meanings and other fields are mandatory, and it notes the tool only creates a candidate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for promotion or verification, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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