athena_projection_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Read' and mentions 'recovery state' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as side effects, error handling, or what actions are safe. It does not go beyond the inherent read-only implication or explain what 'recovery state' entails.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Read', and contains no filler words. It effectively communicates the core action and resource in minimal space.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must clarify what the response contains, but it does not explain the structure of 'recovery state' or what fields or statuses might be returned. Given the tool's status-read nature and the existence of many sibling status tools, the missing return information leaves the description incomplete.

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 sole parameter 'projection_id' is only typed as string. The description alludes to the concept of a 'projection saga' but does not clarify what constitutes a valid ID, any format requirements, or the meaning of 'projection_id' in this context. The description only partially compensates for the lack of 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Read' and a clear resource: 'one topology-to-JSPACE projection saga and its recovery state.' This precisely identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from other status tools like athena_git_status or athena_policy_state by the 'projection saga' and 'recovery state' qualifiers.

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 for reading the status of a projection saga, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools such as athena_projection_prepare, athena_projection_compensate, or athena_topology_project_jspace. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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