athena_reconstruction_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' and 'frozen' signal a read-only, immutable snapshot. It also discloses the specific contents: source sets, Ω snapshot, defects, and digest. It does not mention error handling or absence behavior, but for a simple get this is reasonable.

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 sentence, 15 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It lists the key return elements without extraneous detail. Every word contributes.

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 single-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the agent will get. It lists the data categories, and 'one' makes it clear this is a single-object retrieval. Minor gaps like error behavior or pagination are not critical here.

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 should compensate. It does not explicitly elaborate on run_id, but the parameter name is self-explanatory and the description clarifies that the entity is a RECONRUN. This adds some meaning beyond the schema, though not deeply.

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 ('Fetch'), names the resource ('frozen RECONRUN'), and enumerates the exact components returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_reconstruction_recent (which lists runs) and athena_reconstruction_verify (which likely checks correctness).

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?

Usage is implied: pass a run_id to get a single reconstruction run. However, the description does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. With many sibling tools, a sentence like 'Use for retrieving one specific run; use recent for listing' would be clearer.

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