athena_reconstruct_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but offers meaningful behavioral detail: it freezes exact source refs, converts missing expected refs into defects, and explicitly does not imply searched for unlisted/unavailable sources. However, it does not disclose potential overwrite behavior, return values, or the role of the 'persist' parameter.

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?

Two dense sentences with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every word contributes: the first sentence states the primary action and the second clarifies edge-case behavior with defects and implied searches. No wasted phrasing.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives essential behavior but not full completeness. It clarifies core semantics and negative guarantees but leaves 'actor', 'persist', and what 'freezing' implies for the output or existing state ambiguous.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the core parameters: 'source refs actually consulted' (source_refs) and 'optional expected refs' (expected_refs). It does not explain 'task_ref', 'actor', or 'persist', leaving a notable gap for those 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 clearly states the action ('Persist a RECONRUN') and the specific objects involved ('current Ω', 'exact source refs', 'optional expected refs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like athena_reconstruction_get/recent/verify by making the persistence role explicit.

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 after a reconstruction run to persist state, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides no direct 'when to use' guidance beyond the action itself.

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