athena_pheromone_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states 'Read', indicating a non-mutating operation, and adds 'durable' to suggest persistence. However, it does not disclose return shape, ordering, or effects of limit/min_score, leaving important behavioral aspects unspecified.

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?

Single sentence with the verb 'Read' front-loaded; no filler words. It is efficient and scannable, though the dense jargon ('durable stigmergic priority field') is not elaborated, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

With three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is under-specified. It does not define how limit, min_score, and route_key interact, nor what the response contains, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only loosely maps 'one route' to route_key and 'highest-priority routes' to limit/min_score without explaining the parameters' exact meanings. No parameter names or value semantics are provided, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Read' and names the resource as 'durable stigmergic priority field', with scope ('one route or the highest-priority routes'). It distinguishes from sibling write tools like athena_pheromone_reinforce by implying a read operation, though other 'field' siblings are not clearly differentiated. Domain jargon limits universal clarity.

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 context: querying a single route or top-priority routes. It does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives. Sibling tools such as athena_pheromone_reinforce are implicitly excluded by the word 'Read', but no direction is given for choosing among similar field-related tools.

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