athena_promotion_evaluate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses a key limitation: caller-supplied packets can never mint QUALIFIED, only ATTESTED_READY. It also mentions optional persistence. However, it does not detail the side effects of persistence or any permissions needs, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately providing the key caveat. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 description covers the main purpose and the important trust boundary, but because there is no output schema and no annotations, it omits the return format and the specific effects of persistence. For a tool with nested objects and an optional write side effect, this is 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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by referring to ci_witness and smoke_witness as 'caller-supplied packets', 'exact-head' for git_head, and 'optionally persist' for the persist field. Still, it does not explain the actor parameter or the precise persistence behavior.

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 tool's purpose: 'Evaluate and optionally persist PROMOTION.2 exact-head readiness.' It specifies the verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining the caller-attestation limitation and the difference between ATTESTED_READY and QUALIFIED.

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 when to use it: when caller-supplied CI/smoke packets are available. It explicitly notes that QUALIFIED requires trusted external verification, guiding the agent away from this tool for that use case. However, it does not name specific alternative tools.

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