athena_pheromone_multiscale_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the field is 'persistent', indicating a read from stored state, and 'Return' suggests a non-mutating operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (none expected), return format, or potential costs like large data volumes. It gives some context but not full transparency.

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 sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise and avoids any unnecessary fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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?

The tool is a query with optional parameters and no output schema, so the description should at least hint at the return shape or parameter semantics. It only states what the field is grouped by, but not the output format, default behavior, or how parameters affect results. This leaves significant gaps for autonomous selection and 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention 'limit' or 'min_score' at all. The parameter names provide some clue (limit, min_score), but the description does not clarify what 'min_score' filters on (e.g., pheromone intensity at which scale?) or how filtering interacts with the grouped result. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Return' with a clearly identified resource ('persistent multiscale pheromone field') and specifies the grouping dimensions ('by token/artifact/module/domain/system scale'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'athena_pheromone_field' by emphasizing 'multiscale', clarifying this is the multi-scale variant.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would use this tool when it needs the multiscale pheromone field. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the similar 'athena_pheromone_field' (single-scale) or other pheromone tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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