athena_joint_science_evi

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose side effects, return behavior, and operational constraints. It only states the computation and the ambiguous 'DESIGN_ONLY' marker, but does not clarify whether this is a pure read-only computation, what it returns, or what 'DESIGN_ONLY' means functionally.

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, dense sentence plus 'DESIGN_ONLY.', so it is concise and front-loaded. However, the jargon-heavy phrasing and unexplained marker make it less readable and not every element contributes clear value.

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 decision-analysis tool with no output schema, no annotations, and no property descriptions in the schema. The description fails to cover essential context: input structure, meaning of weights, expected output, or usage scenarios. It is far from sufficient for safe invocation.

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 7 parameters with zero description coverage. The description mentions 'weighted joint science-twin states' and 'declared outcome likelihoods,' which loosely map to joint_states and possibly some weights, but it does not explain actions, experiments, or the specific weight parameters. The agent cannot infer how to populate the required fields.

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 states the tool computes exact finite decision EVI plus entropy reduction over joint science-twin states and outcome likelihoods, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from generic EVI tools by the 'joint science-twin' qualifier, though it does not explicitly refer to sibling 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative decision-analysis tools (e.g., athena_decision_evi, athena_decision_evpi). The trailing 'DESIGN_ONLY' hints at a usage restriction but is not explained, so the agent is left without clear selection criteria.

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