athena_prompt_freshness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'requires rehydration on material shared changes', but does not clarify whether this is a read-only check or a mutating operation, what 'rehydration' entails, or what side effects occur. The tool's behavior is under-specified.

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 that front-loads the core action. No wasted words, and it fits in one line while conveying purpose and a hint of behavior.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and a large sibling set, the description is far too thin. It lacks parameter semantics, return behavior, side effects, and usage context, leaving the agent to guess at critical details.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention any parameter names or meanings, though 'expected_git_head' and 'expected_prompt_stack_digest' are lightly implied by the reference to 'prompt/Git ancestry'. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly fill the fields.

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 a specific action: compare an agent's prompt/Git ancestry with the current brain and require rehydration on material shared changes. This goes beyond a vague restatement and gives a distinct purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like athena_rehydration_verify or athena_prompt_hydrate, so it misses the top score.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a freshness-check/rehydration-trigger role, but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or mention any sibling tool as a fallback. Without this, the agent must infer usage from the vague wording.

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