athena_promotion_verify_github

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses behavioral details: verification is independent, uses an internally produced trusted verifier receipt, and the caller lacks control over several configuration aspects. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, failure behavior, or return format. It is more transparent than a simple 'Verify promotion' but still leaves significant unknowns.

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 compact—two sentences. It front-loads the main purpose ('Independently verify...') and the second sentence adds useful constraints. However, it uses unexplained jargon (PROMOTION.2, trusted verifier receipt) that forces the reader to infer meaning, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 4 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, what persist or actor affect, or what timeout_s is for. The internal steps of verification and receipt production are mentioned but not elaborated into a complete picture 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 for all four parameters. It only elaborates on git_head ('target Git head'); actor, persist, and timeout_s are not explained at all. Given 4 params and zero schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.

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 performs two actions: independently verifying a target Git head against host-configured GitHub settings and then evaluating PROMOTION.2 with a trusted verifier receipt. It is specific about the resource (Git head, GitHub repository/check-suite) and distinct from generic promotion tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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: call this when you need independent verification of a Git head against host-configured GitHub settings. It lists constraints (caller cannot choose repository, API host, etc.) but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. No sibling tool is mentioned as an alternative.

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