athena_orchestration_robustness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only computation on an existing run ('persisted orchestration run') but does not explicitly state whether it has side effects, requires specific permissions, or returns structured output. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's core function, achieving maximal conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is insufficiently contextual. It does not explain what 'successor rank sensitivity' means, what the output looks like, how relative_perturbation works, or any operational context, leaving the agent with sparse guidance for a likely domain-specific analysis task.

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 description does not mention either parameter. It only implies the run_id via 'one persisted orchestration run' but fails to explain the optional relative_perturbation parameter or how it affects the computation. The description adds no value beyond the schema, which itself lacks 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 states a specific verb ('Compute') and a specific resource ('successor rank sensitivity for one persisted orchestration run'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_orchestration_get or athena_causal_robustness by defining the exact analysis scope.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states what it computes, leaving the agent to infer usage context. No exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools are provided.

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