athena_mck_strata_transport

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral facts itself. It does state that only bounded non-identity transport is allowed with an explicit source-bearing bridge and declared invariants/loss, which is useful, but it omits side effects, read-only vs mutating behavior, authorization requirements, and return/error behavior. This is insufficient for a complex evaluation tool.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and contains no filler. However, the second sentence is extremely dense and jargon-heavy, which slightly harms clarity despite the concise structure.

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 highly complex tool with nested schemas, 12 operation enum values, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides almost no guidance on parameter semantics, return values, or failure behavior. It gives only a high-level rule about transport constraints and leaves the agent ill-equipped to invoke the tool 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% and the tool has 6 parameters with nested objects and enums. The description only vaguely alludes to the explicit_bridge parameter through 'source-bearing bridge' and to invariants/loss, but it does not explain required parameters like source, target, operation, risk_class, or target_model_class. It fails to compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Evaluate') and a specific resource ('one layer-to-layer MCK transport'), giving a clear basic purpose. The second sentence adds scope by describing constraints on cross-layer shortcuts and bridges, which helps distinguish it from sibling transport tools, though the MCK-specific jargon is unexplained and slightly opaque.

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 the many sibling transport_* tools. The statements about shortcuts holding and bounded bridge transport are policy constraints rather than actionable usage direction, so an agent is left without clear selection criteria.

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