athena_mck_epistemic_split

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It adds a key behavioral rule: 'unsupported OBSERVED/EMPIRICAL/HISTORICAL_PRIMARY and high-stakes symbolic use HOLD', which tells the agent when the tool will hold rather than promote. It does not disclose return format, side effects, or permissions, but the HOLD condition is meaningful.

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 one concise sentence, but it opens with the unexplained acronym 'ESCPF' and packs domain jargon ('standing', 'HOLD'). It is not overly long, but the brevity sacrifices clarity.

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 non-trivial tool with a nested `items` array, multiple enums, and no output schema or annotations. A single cryptic sentence does not explain what 'standing' means, what the output looks like, what 'HOLD' entails, or how use_case and requested_promotion influence the split/evaluation. Significant gaps remain.

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 connects only loosely to parameters: 'split claims' hints at `items`, 'explicit promotion requests' maps to `requested_promotion`, and 'high-stakes symbolic use' relates to `use_case`. It does not clarify `source_ref`, `independent`, `witness_ref`, `provenance_type`, or the exact semantics of 'standing'.

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 states a specific action: 'split claims by standing and evaluate explicit promotion requests', identifying both the operation and the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like athena_claim_promote or athena_promotion_evaluate by focusing on epistemic split, though the acronym 'ESCPF' and term 'standing' are unexplained.

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: use when you need to split claims by standing or evaluate explicit promotion requests. However, no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references are provided, even though siblings like athena_claim_promote and athena_promotion_evaluate exist.

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