athena_party_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does reveal a notable side effect (synchronizing the Message Board frontier) that goes beyond a simple list operation, but it does not elaborate on the nature of the synchronization, safety, or potential return format.

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 redundant words. However, its brevity sacrifices critical details, making it more under-specified than concise in the sense of being complete.

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?

Given the tool has three optional parameters, a side effect, and no output schema, the description lacks essential context. It does not explain what 'Git-shared parties' are, what 'Message Board frontier' means, or what the returned list contains.

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?

With zero schema description coverage and no mention of the three parameters (limit, remote, shared_remote_mode) in the description, the agent cannot infer what these parameters control. The description provides no semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 that the tool lists Git-shared parties, and adds a specific precondition/behavior of synchronizing the Message Board frontier. This distinguishes it from other party-related tools that might just observe or join, though it does not name a specific alternative.

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 phrase 'after synchronizing the Message Board frontier' implies a sequencing requirement, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools like athena_party_observe or athena_party_state. It also does not explain what to do if synchronization is not needed.

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