athena_policy_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it mutates state, what side effects occur, or any preconditions. 'Score' suggests a computation, but no safety or behavioral details are given.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and object efficiently, but its brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and usage detail. It is concise, but perhaps too terse for such a specialized tool.

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 tool's complexity (nested parameter, no output schema, no annotations) and the large sibling list, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the return value, what 'bounded' means, acceptable feature vector formats, or how this scoring relates to other policy tools. A much richer description is needed.

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. It adds meaning to 'features' by describing it as a 'normalized feature vector', but it does not explain the structure of the nested object or mention the 'scope' parameter at all. The compensation is minimal and incomplete.

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 action ('Score') and the resource ('normalized feature vector'), with a specific qualifier ('current bounded learned organization policy') that gives it a distinct identity among siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate from other policy-related tools, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a usage context ('scoring normalized feature vectors against the policy') but does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without explicit decision support.

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