athena_omega_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that unavailable components remain UNKNOWN, providing one behavioral trait. However, it doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, or how the packet structures missing data, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core action. While the first sentence is a dense list of domains, each item adds meaning and the entire description stays succinct without redundant 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?

For a no-parameter tool without an output schema, the description lists the covered state categories and notes UNKNOWN for unavailable parts, which is helpful. However, it doesn't explain the packet's structure, how to interpret the output, or what 'accessible' means, leaving gaps for a potentially complex projection tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description appropriately focuses on output rather than inputs.

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 projects current accessible ATHENA runtime state into an Ω packet, listing specific domains (semantic head, Git, base/crystal, Collective, etc.). This gives a specific verb and resource, and the comprehensive scope distinguishes it from more narrowly scoped sibling state tools like athena_branch_state or athena_cycle_state, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other state-related sibling tools. It doesn't mention alternatives, exclusions, or the appropriate context for calling this projection instead of a more specific state tool.

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