athena_jspace_alarm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: the alarm is 'bounded decaying,' dependency direction is reversed, and unknown relations are ignored. However, it does not state whether the tool mutates state, whether it is read-only, what triggers an alarm, or what the output format is.

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 two dense sentences with no repetition or filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds necessary edge-case behavior. Every clause 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?

Given five parameters, a nested object, zero annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It omits explanations for threshold, relation_modes behavior, side effects, and return values, leaving critical gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool. The high-level algorithm alone is insufficient for reliable parameter construction.

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 never explicitly names or explains parameters. 'Bounded decaying alarm' loosely maps to max_hops/hop_decay, and 'unknown relations are ignored unless explicitly mapped' hints at relation_modes, but seeds, threshold, and severity are not semantically enriched. The description adds algorithmic context but leaves most parameter meaning to inference.

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 a specific operation: 'Compile typed JSPACE edges into an invalidation graph and propagate a bounded decaying alarm.' It names the resource (typed JSPACE edges) and the action (compile/propagate), which distinguishes it from generic graph tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling tool 'athena_dependency_alarm,' so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it does not name any sibling tools or exclusion scenarios. The only conditional information is the behavioral rule that 'unknown relations are ignored unless explicitly mapped,' which is a semantic detail, not usage guidance.

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