athena_mck_protocol_machine

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: simulation grants no execution authority, and missing boundary/phase or declared hazardous classes cause a HOLD. These are valuable safety and control-flow details, though return behavior and side effects are not described.

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 action and key constraints. However, the unexplained 'RSM:' prefix adds noise without immediate value.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far from complete. It fails to explain the B->Theta->Pi workflow, the semantics of required parameters, or what the simulation returns, leaving an agent unable to invoke it confidently.

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%, yet the description provides minimal parameter insight. It hints at boundary and phase being relevant (by mentioning 'missing boundary/phase') and hazardous classes map to risk_class, but it does not explain mode, steps, witness, or the structure of boundary and phase objects.

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 clearly states the tool simulates a B->Theta->Pi workflow gating process, providing a specific verb (simulate) and resource. However, the jargon 'B->Theta->Pi' is unexplained, and it does not differentiate from sibling MCP tools like athena_mck_model_bridge.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The simulation nature implies safe testing, but the description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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