athena_party_observe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool 'never mutates global XP authority' and that legacy calls with missing coordinates 'remain parseable but HOLD.' These are valuable behavioral insights beyond the basic record/calculate action.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, outlining award requirements/hold behavior, and providing a safety guarantee. It is concise and well-structured, though dense with domain jargon.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (9 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description leaves many gaps. It does not explain the return value, how to structure 'results' entries, what 'current frozen claims' concretely means, or how parameters like 'remote' and 'witness_ref' are used. The cryptic jargon and missing operational details make the description incomplete for context.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It mentions 'source_xp_ref' and 'ACKed typed result events' which map loosely to schema fields, but most parameters (observation_id, party_id, observer, base_xp, results, witness_ref, remote) are left unexplained. The description provides insufficient meaning beyond the schema's names/types.

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 records a 'witnessed multi-goal party outcome' and calculates a 'receipt-gated coordination XP bonus candidate.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like athena_party_result or athena_party_state, which likely handle different aspects of party processing.

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 provides context about the requirements for an award (frozen claims, ACKed events, unused source_xp_ref) and notes legacy calls HOLD, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer this tool over siblings. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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