athena_qhug_decomposition_verify

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

The description discloses the key behavioral outcome (certification of specific properties) and notes the conditional exact treewidth value when a matching clique lower bound is present. However, it does not mention any side effects, error handling, or prerequisites, but since verification is inherently a read-only operation, the absence of destructive disclosures is acceptable. With no annotations, the description provides a moderate level of transparency.

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 sentence that packs several technical concepts, but it is not overly verbose and clearly states the primary action first. It earns its place without filler.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema), the description provides only a high-level summary. It does not explain how the parameters map to the certification criteria, what inputs are required, or what the return value looks like, making it insufficient for correct 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?

The schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not reference any parameter names or explain the meaning of 'patches', 'bags', 'conflicts', etc., leaving the agent to infer from names alone. The phrase 'supplied tree decomposition' hints at 'bags' but does not clarify required vs optional parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Verify' with a clear resource ('tree decomposition') and enumerates the specific certification criteria (factor coverage, running intersection, width upper bound, exact treewidth value), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from 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 does not specify when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond describing the core verification task. No alternative tools are referenced.

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