athena_pomdp_solve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the conditional behavior: if the node search doesn't complete, no certificate is returned. This is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not state whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or what 'no certificate' precisely means, leaving ambiguity.

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 that is direct and free of filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the conditional caveat. The only weakness is that it is arguably too terse, omitting necessary context, but for conciseness itself it scores well.

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 six parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain parameter roles, return value structure, or use conditions, making it impossible for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional information.

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 provides no parameter explanations. It mentions 'finite-state' and 'finite-horizon' which loosely relate to states and horizon, but it doesn't define the required parameters (states, actions, initial_belief) or optional ones (horizon, discount, max_nodes). The agent can't infer parameter semantics from the description.

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 identifies the tool as an exhaustive solver for a finite-state finite-horizon POMDP tree, with a conditional success criterion. It distinguishes from sibling solve tools by emphasizing 'small' and the node-search dependency. However, it leaves 'node search' undefined, which slightly obscures the exact scope.

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 a precondition (node search must complete) and a fallback (no certificate). This gives some guidance on when the tool succeeds, but it does not state when to choose this over sibling solvers like athena_bapomdp_solve. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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