athena_reconstruction_verify

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

With no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting. It explains the computation source (frozen source contract and Ω snapshot) and the verification semantics. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns on success/failure, or any side effects, which is a meaningful gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action and follows with a concise scope clarification, making it both efficient and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter verification tool, it covers the core purpose and a key non-goal. However, since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what a verification outcome looks like (e.g., boolean, report, error), and it does not define internal terms like 'RECONRUN' or 'Ω snapshot' that an agent may need.

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 0% description coverage for the single parameter run_id. The description implies run_id identifies the RECONRUN to verify, but it does not explain how to obtain it, its format, or its relationship to the frozen source contract. Some meaning is added, but not enough to fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 ('Recompute') and resource ('one RECONRUN digest'), and clearly states the tool verifies receipt integrity, not freshness of current state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_reconstruction_get or athena_rehydration_verify.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use the tool: for verifying receipt integrity of a RECONRUN. It also provides an explicit exclusion: 'not freshness of current state.' However, it does not name alternative tools or provide detailed when-not-to-use guidance beyond this single exclusion.

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