athena_projection_prepare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It clearly states 'without mutating JSPACE,' which is an important safety behavior. However, it uses 'journal' without explaining what journaling entails (e.g., writes to a log, requires permissions) and does not describe behavior when version/head checks fail. This partial disclosure warrants a mid-range score.

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, dense sentence with no redundant filler. Every phrase contributes meaning: the action, the resource, the validation targets, and the side-effect-free guarantee. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient for its complexity.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the tool returns, what an error condition looks like, or how 'journaling' manifests. It also lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., existing topology) and relationship to sibling projection tools. The single sentence covers purpose but not operational details, which is a significant gap for an agent.

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 maps the phrase 'topology/semantic/Git heads' to the expected_topology_version, expected_semantic_eid, and expected_git_head parameters, providing useful grouping. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'topology_id' or 'actor', nor clarify accepted formats (e.g., whether expected_git_head is a full hash). The description adds some value but leaves several parameters underdefined.

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's function: preparing and journaling a topology-to-JSPACE projection plan. It specifies the resource ('projection plan') and the key constraint ('without mutating JSPACE'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely execute or mutate. The verb 'prepare and journal' is specific and action-oriented.

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 dry-run or validation use case by mentioning 'against explicit topology/semantic/Git heads' and 'without mutating JSPACE,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like athena_topology_project_jspace or athena_projection_status. There is no named alternative or 'use this when' guidance.

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