athena_mck_oracle_decode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses deterministic behavior and symbolic-only boundaries, which are useful. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, modifies state, or describe error/edge-case behavior, leaving important operational traits unspecified.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the acronym and core action. Every phrase contributes: deterministic selection, codebook source, sample/seed dependency, and the symbolic-only caveat. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has a complex input schema (nested codebook objects, enums) and no output schema or annotations, yet the description only covers purpose and boundaries. It omits the output format, use_case behavior, query semantics, and codebook construction guidance, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke the tool correctly in varied contexts.

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 does mention 'explicit sample/seed' and 'caller-supplied codebook', covering the key inputs. But it leaves 'query' and 'use_case' unexplained—both are in the schema but their purpose and interaction with the decode behavior are not 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 operation ('deterministically select/decode'), a clear resource ('caller-supplied codebook'), and the governing inputs ('explicit sample/seed'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'symbolic-only' and 'no factual prediction,' though the unexplained 'OSD' acronym adds minor ambiguity.

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 clear context: use when deterministically selecting/decoding a symbolic codebook from explicit sample/seed inputs. It also gives an explicit exclusion ('no factual prediction or high-stakes authority'), which helps the agent avoid misuse. However, no alternative tools are named, and there is no explicit 'when not to use' beyond the high-stakes caveat.

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