athena_pending_mutations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states a read-only behavior ('Return'), implying no side effects. It also adds context about the scope ('globally visible') and the selection criterion ('not adopted'). While it doesn't discuss auth or error cases, for a simple query tool this is sufficient.

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, concise sentence (8 words) that front-loads the primary verb and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a complete functional understanding. It explains what the tool returns and the scope. Minor gaps include lack of usage guidance and parameter explanation, but these are not critical for such a straightforward query tool.

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 description indirectly references the single required parameter 'agent' via 'this agent', giving some meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explicitly explain the parameter's format, allowed values, or why it is required. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves room for clarity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('globally visible mutations this agent has not adopted'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like athena_adopt_mutation or athena_promote_mutation by explicitly targeting unadopted mutations.

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 implies usage for checking which mutations are pending for a given agent, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. There are no references to sibling tools or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and other mutation-related tools.

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