athena_prompt_compile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the useful trait 'Deterministically' and mentions the 'configured Git brain', implying reproducibility and a configuration prerequisite. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, whether it is a read-only operation, or any requirements for the Git brain.

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, focused sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the key verb 'compile' and includes only relevant details, making it easy to read and process.

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 the presence of 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what output is produced, what the parameters do, or any usage context beyond the one-line summary. This is insufficient for safe and effective invocation.

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 description does not mention any of the parameters (task, profile, include_text). It references 'selected modules' but does not map these to the schema. The agent cannot infer what each parameter controls.

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 action ('Deterministically compile') and its specific inputs (policy, selected modules, scoped overlays) from the 'configured Git brain'. This is specific and distinguishes it from other compile-like tools (e.g., field_compile, gap_compile) and prompt-related siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like athena_prompt_hydrate or athena_prompt_sync. The description implies it is for compiling a prompt from Git brain, but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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