athena_party_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description's 'Read' indicates a non-mutating operation and the content list outlines expected return data. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior if called without a fresh sync, permissions needed, or whether the call modifies any state (e.g., marking evidence as read).

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and efficiently lists the included data. Every word adds value with no 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 read tool with no output schema, the description gives a useful high-level overview and content list, but it omits parameter semantics and return shape, leaving the agent unable to reliably invoke the tool. The sync precondition is mentioned, but edge cases and prerequisites are not elaborated.

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 explain any of the three parameters. 'party_id' is only implicit from 'Read one party', while 'remote' and 'shared_remote_mode' are entirely undefined, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set them.

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 specifies the action ('Read one party') and scope, listing concrete data categories (members, board presence, acknowledged communication evidence, Big-3 score, reward receipts). The phrase 'after a fresh shared-board sync' adds a specific condition that distinguishes this state-reading tool from sibling operations like list or observe.

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 a clear precondition: 'after a fresh shared-board sync', guiding when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the stated context is enough to infer intended usage.

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