athena_mck_correspondence_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It does disclose two non-behaviors (no standing upgrade, no causal claim) and states that edges are caller-supplied, but it does not describe output, side effects, validation, or error behavior. The term 'standing' is undefined, and the description is too terse to inform the agent of operational consequences.

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 with no filler, which is efficient in length. However, it is cryptic and relies on unexplained acronyms and domain jargon, making it less concise in a helpful sense. It could be equally short while including more concrete terms, so the structure is adequate but not exemplary.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It has 4 parameters, including a nested object array, and operates in a specialized domain. The one-sentence description fails to explain expected return values, edge validation rules, or the relationship to the many sibling tools. This is severely incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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. It adds a hint that edges are caller-supplied and 'typed' (likely referring to the 'relation' property) and that standing is not upgraded (relevant to the 'standing' field). However, it does not explain the purpose of src, dst, max_depth, or the edge object fields like directed and source_ref. The parameter semantics are only marginally clarified.

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 identifies a specific action ('route through') and a resource ('caller-supplied typed edges'), but the abbreviation 'CGR' and the phrase 'without upgrading standing or claiming a causal path' are jargon that obscure the tool's core function. It gives some indication of scope but does not clearly distinguish it from siblings like athena_graph_path or athena_add_edge.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The negative constraints ('without upgrading standing or claiming a causal path') imply when not to use it, but no alternative tools or positive use cases are mentioned. The agent is left to infer suitability from the name and sibling list.

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