athena_reconstruction_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of not expanding full snapshots, and 'List' implies read-only, but it does not mention side effects, required permissions, or the meaning of 'recent'. Basic transparency is present but limited.

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, concise and front-loaded. It communicates the core action and a key differentiator without unnecessary words or restating the tool name.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains what it does but leaves ambiguity around 'recent' (time window?) and what a 'reconstruction receipt' is. The 'Ω snapshots' reference is cryptic. Given the context, it is minimally sufficient but not fully self-contained.

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?

There is one parameter, 'limit', with schema definition (integer, min 1, max 500) but no description. Schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention 'limit' at all, so the agent must guess that it controls the number of receipts returned. This does not compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'recent reconstruction receipts'. The qualifier 'without expanding full Ω snapshots' distinguishes this from related tools like athena_reconstruction_get or athena_reconstruction_verify, making the scope 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?

The phrase 'without expanding full Ω snapshots' implies when this tool is appropriate (lightweight listing) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No 'use X instead' guidance is provided, leaving the choice to the agent based on inference.

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