athena_prompt_remote_status

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Never mutates local history', a key safety guarantee, and mentions optional fetch which implies network behavior. Could add output format or error details, but core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause adds value. The main action, optional flag, and safety guarantee are all included efficiently.

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 simple 2-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides purpose, an optional flag, and a safety guarantee. It lacks a description of the returned status format, but this is a minor gap given the tool's name and scope.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optionally fetch' and 'configured remote branch' which relate to the fetch and remote parameters, but does not explicitly define the remote parameter's semantics or default behavior. Param names help, but gaps remain.

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?

Uses specific verb 'compare' with resource 'local prompt-brain checkout' and 'configured remote branch', clearly distinguishing from siblings like athena_prompt_sync. The scope is precise and unambiguous.

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?

States 'optionally fetch before comparison' and 'Never mutates local history', providing clear context for safe read-only inspection. Does not explicitly name alternatives, but gives enough guidance for when and when not to use this tool.

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