athena_match_help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions matching based on 'latest' data, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it triggers side effects, what it returns, or any prerequisites (e.g., agent existence). The lack of any behavioral details beyond a verb phrase leaves significant uncertainty.

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 directly conveys the core action and objects. Every word contributes meaning, and it avoids redundancy or fluff. It is an appropriate length for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of offers or capability deltas) and any side effects. It does not. While the tool has only two parameters, the description still leaves important context unspecified, such as the nature of the result and any limitations.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. The description gives some meaning to the 'agent' parameter (the agent whose needs/blockers are matched), but the 'limit' parameter is entirely unexplained. No parameter names or formats are mentioned, so the description only partially fills the gap left by the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Match') with a clear resource ('an agent's latest needs/blockers against peers' latest offers/capability deltas'). It clearly states the matching function and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like athena_failure_antibody_match by focusing on agent needs vs peer offers, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool matches a specific agent's needs with peer capabilities. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no situation-based direction. The word 'latest' suggests a temporal context but no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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