athena_prompt_sync

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavior disclosure. It clearly states the fetch action, the fast-forward precondition (clean branch, local HEAD is ancestor), and the hold conditions (failed fetch, ahead, diverged, dirty). This is far more transparent than typical tool descriptions and covers the main safety-related behaviors.

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 entire description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action and packs in the preconditions and hold states. Every clause adds meaningful information without redundancy, making it efficient and scannable.

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 explains the operational conditions well but omits any information about return values or result semantics. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent does not know what the tool returns on success or in the hold states. The parameter semantics gap further reduces completeness for a tool with non-trivial behavior.

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 one optional 'remote' parameter (string), but the description never mentions it. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no hint whether 'remote' is a name like 'origin', a URL, or something else, nor what happens when it is omitted. The description does not compensate for this lack of parameter documentation.

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 is highly specific: it names the action (fresh-fetch), the resource (shared prompt-brain remote), and the exact condition under which it fast-forwards (clean branch, local HEAD ancestor). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_prompt_remote_status, athena_prompt_freshness, and athena_prompt_hydrate.

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 as a synchronization point for updating the local prompt brain, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The conditional behavior ('Failed fetch, ahead, diverged or dirty states hold') gives clear context for when the tool will not complete, but no direct guidance on selecting this over siblings.

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