athena_maxdev_law

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns a law and lists coverage areas, but it does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only, describe the return format, or note any side effects or prerequisites. The verb 'Return' implies safety, but explicit behavioral context is missing.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and object. It enumerates many topics, making it slightly dense, but every phrase contributes useful information. There is no redundant or filler content, so it earns a 4.

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?

As a parameterless retrieval tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned and the topics covered, which is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke it. It could be improved by mentioning the return format or whether the law is a plain text document, but the scope list provides adequate context.

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 tool has zero parameters and the empty schema fully covers the interface. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately provides scope context without confusing parameter details.

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 the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'canonical unified MAXDEV execution law', which clearly states what the tool does. It also lists the areas covered, adding specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, so it scores a 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives. The description implies it should be used when the canonical execution law is needed, but offers no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools. This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria beyond the tool's name.

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