athena_operational_basis

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

The description adds useful behavioral context by stating 'without widening execution authority' and listing descriptor categories (semantic capability, effect, authority, freshness, preconditions, replay, rollback). However, with no annotations, it still leaves gaps about output format, error conditions, and whether the operation is purely read-only.

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 core purpose ('Return OPERATIONAL_BASIS_V1') and packs additional semantic detail without redundancy. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and the dimensions covered. It lacks an example or explicit mention of return structure, but this is a minor gap for such a simple interface.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs, meeting the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 'Return OPERATIONAL_BASIS_V1 derived from the actually registered current prompt/control-plane MCP surface', identifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the operational basis of the registered MCP surface, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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. It implies usage for inspecting the current operational basis but does not state exclusions or contrast with similar tools like athena_surface_audit or athena_topology_get.

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