athena_joint_gaussian_control

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 discloses the computation method ('exact moments, lower-tail Normal CVaR, cost and Pareto preservation'), the failure behavior ('Unknown coefficient coordinates fail closed'), and the side-effect constraint ('PLAN_ONLY'). This is substantive, though it does not describe return format or other potential side effects.

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 and front-loaded: three short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second adds failure behavior, and the third flags plan-only mode. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a complex tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description gives only a terse summary. It omits return values, parameter format expectations, relationships to sibling tools, and any operational caveats beyond 'fail closed' and 'PLAN_ONLY.' The description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in varied contexts.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explicitly define any of the 7 parameters. It indirectly hints at 'cvar_alpha' via 'lower-tail Normal CVaR' and 'cost_weight' via 'cost', but leaves 'variables', 'mean', 'covariance', 'actions', and 'risk_weight' without added semantic meaning beyond their names.

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 the specific verb 'Rank' and identifies the target resource as 'unique linear actions under a declared multivariate Gaussian belief.' It further specifies the method ('exact moments, lower-tail Normal CVaR, cost and Pareto preservation'), which clearly differentiates this tool from sibling tools like athena_joint_gaussian_update or athena_gaussian_belief_observe.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a declared multivariate Gaussian belief and need to rank linear actions. The 'PLAN_ONLY' directive clarifies that it is for planning, not execution, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusionary guidance, preventing a 5.

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